| Author |
 Topic  |
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
 Posted - 15 Jan 2015 : 02:01:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
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.
That reminds me of the famous Arthur C. Clarke quote: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Sufficiently advanced magic might very well appear to constitute breaking of the "rules".
Another scientific analogy might be how certain fields of science are applicable in certain contexts, but they begin to lose their usefulness as the contexts change. My understanding is that Newtonian physics doesn't really work at relativistic speeds, or on the quantum level. That's not to say that Newton was wrong. It's just that certain other considerations come into play when the conditions significantly change. And when this is first discovered, it really feels like someone is breaking the rules that had existed for a long time before.
Sometimes we're simply being shown that we only thought we knew what the rules were. Perhaps our understanding of the rules--perhaps the explanation of the rules that we had become familiar with--was only a working approximation of reality, but not an exact one. Perhaps we should remain ever open to newer explanations, and ever better understandings of reality--whatever that "reality" may be. |
"'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 : 02:02:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
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.
That is very true, but it's also true that a LOT of people find that kind of gameplay fun. It's why some of them come to D&D, and it's why TSR and WotC often provide ststs for gods - or at least their avatars.
Whether or not it's overly competitive, or "badwrongfun" or maybe the most fun is entirely subjective and personal. But it's not just for those people that DMs really need more information about the "big players" who are floating around in the setting. It's one reason, certainly, but not the only one.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2015 : 02:38:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
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.
I don't think you're using the phrase "Mary Sue" correctly here, Eltheron. My understanding of the phrase is a character who is so perfect or idealized, and yet so underdeveloped, as to be cliché and boring. Someone who is a goody two-shoes simply for the sake of being a goody two-shoes, without any compelling background or reason for existence, would be a Mary Sue.
But you are likening someone like that to unbeatable NPCs. Unbeatable doesn't mean cliché, boring, or undeveloped. It just means beyond the PCs' ability to defeat.
Why is it that difficult to accept to some characters (or various challenges) are going to always be beyond PCs' abilities? Is there a pride or ego thing, here? It sure sounds like it.
And why can't such unbeatable NPCs be further developed through other means besides conflict and challenges? Why must there be a victor, or at least a glimmer of hope of victory? Why can't there just be respect, cooperation, kumbayah, and all that jazz? Why can't mere detente be sufficient?
quote:
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.
I think that reveals more of a flaw or shortcoming in your players than it does in the game or the NPCs. Why are your players so vain as to refuse to accept that some characters will always remain beyond them? Why are they so hurt by that reality? What is it within them that drives them to dominate any and all, so? Is it some sort of insecurity? Do they feel so inadequate in their real world personal lives that role playing must invariably serve as the means for them to get their comeuppance against this cruel, cruel world?
Gah! I guess all that ^^^ sounds snide and condescending and mean-spirited. Maybe it is, on some level.
But mostly it's just curiosity on my part. What is it that pushes so many to be the best, and to refuse to acknowledge their own limitations relative to others? Why is it so hard for them to accept that others are and will remain their superiors?
That someone/something else is your greater, does not nullify or negate your own self worth. It's not a zero-sum thing like that. It isn't all-or-nothing. They can be a 100, and you can still be a 50, and everybody can be quite proud of themselves with that state of affairs. |
"'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"> |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2015 : 02:52:34
|
NPCs, regardless of level and stats, can be adjusted up or down as needed by DMs to suit the needs and the play style of a given campaign.
DMs don't necessarily need special/insider knowledge of who or what the earth-shaking NPCs of the Realms are, nor do they need permission ahead of time, to make these adjustments.
Or DMs can we'll decide that the Larlochs and the gods are all untouchable, and avoid the issue of stats all together.
Whatever info or history a DM is missing he or she can make up. That's part of the fun of being a DM.
This doesn't mean I would not welcome more info on Larloch--bring it on I say--it's just that I won't let a paucity of information keep me from using him if I decided I wanted an overwhelmingly powerful undead being in my campaign.
|
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Austin the Archmage
Seeker
USA
57 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2015 : 04:34:32
|
| While we're on the subject of epic NPCs, how come Larloch gets so much more attention than Aumvor? They're both Netherese, they're both liches, they both have a challenge ratings of 34, but nobody talks about Aumvor. Nobody votes for him in "Best spellcaster" threads. He never gets invited to any parties. Why is that? |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36968 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2015 : 04:51:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Austin the Archmage
While we're on the subject of epic NPCs, how come Larloch gets so much more attention than Aumvor? They're both Netherese, they're both liches, they both have a challenge ratings of 34, but nobody talks about Aumvor. Nobody votes for him in "Best spellcaster" threads. He never gets invited to any parties. Why is that?
He used to get invited to parties, but not any more. He knows what happened at that Taco Bell that night. Everyone else swore never to speak of it again. 
On a more serious note, Larloch has had a lot more screen time, has been in the published Realms a lot longer, and has the added advantage of hanging out with 60+ liches in the evocatively-named "Warlock's Crypt."
Aumvor is powerful, but Larloch is akin to a force of nature. |
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! |
|
|
|
Nicolai Withander
Master of Realmslore
Denmark
1093 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2015 : 06:42:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
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.
I don't think you're using the phrase "Mary Sue" correctly here, Eltheron. My understanding of the phrase is a character who is so perfect or idealized, and yet so underdeveloped, as to be cliché and boring. Someone who is a goody two-shoes simply for the sake of being a goody two-shoes, without any compelling background or reason for existence, would be a Mary Sue.
But you are likening someone like that to unbeatable NPCs. Unbeatable doesn't mean cliché, boring, or undeveloped. It just means beyond the PCs' ability to defeat.
Why is it that difficult to accept to some characters (or various challenges) are going to always be beyond PCs' abilities? Is there a pride or ego thing, here? It sure sounds like it.
And why can't such unbeatable NPCs be further developed through other means besides conflict and challenges? Why must there be a victor, or at least a glimmer of hope of victory? Why can't there just be respect, cooperation, kumbayah, and all that jazz? Why can't mere detente be sufficient?
quote:
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.
I think that reveals more of a flaw or shortcoming in your players than it does in the game or the NPCs. Why are your players so vain as to refuse to accept that some characters will always remain beyond them? Why are they so hurt by that reality? What is it within them that drives them to dominate any and all, so? Is it some sort of insecurity? Do they feel so inadequate in their real world personal lives that role playing must invariably serve as the means for them to get their comeuppance against this cruel, cruel world?
Gah! I guess all that ^^^ sounds snide and condescending and mean-spirited. Maybe it is, on some level.
But mostly it's just curiosity on my part. What is it that pushes so many to be the best, and to refuse to acknowledge their own limitations relative to others? Why is it so hard for them to accept that others are and will remain their superiors?
That someone/something else is your greater, does not nullify or negate your own self worth. It's not a zero-sum thing like that. It isn't all-or-nothing. They can be a 100, and you can still be a 50, and everybody can be quite proud of themselves with that state of affairs.
I think that it's not so much a shortcoming of the players, but style of play incorporated by the group. I personally don't mind that there are NPC that are more powerful than my wizard, but that does not remove the legality of pursuing to be the best or most powerful. It would seem that most athletes would be like this. Call it vanity or insecurity or a personal flaw that makes them want to dominate other so. I would call it striving for perfection; ambition and competitiveness a wish to personal better themselves. Your words are very negative laden, and I think that unfair.
I too want to the best possible spell caster. That does not mean that I don't accept that there are primordials, deities or others - like the Lady of Pain, who are beyond me. But that does not diminish my wish to be better and stronger than them. Part of the fun of the game, is that we are not bound by our human form, ability or time. In D&D it's possible for me to take down the gods... If we play long enough.
I agree that there is something very intriguing about a character that you know nothing of, and I would say, that the DM should by all means keep the stats of the NPCs secret, but that does not mean that there should be some clear indication of abilities. I would say that the DM could homebrew all the abilities for the Srinshee, but then write them down. I have played against one, who adapted mid fight in terms of abilities. It was the worst.
|
|
|
|
Entromancer
Senior Scribe
USA
388 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2015 : 13:34:12
|
| If magic has rules, then you've explained how it works and now you are dealing in science. |
"...the will is everything. The will to act."--Ra's Al Ghul
"Suffering builds character."--Talia Al Ghul |
|
|
|
Eltheron
Senior Scribe
740 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2015 : 14:09:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
I don't think you're using the phrase "Mary Sue" correctly here, Eltheron. My understanding of the phrase is a character who is so perfect or idealized, and yet so underdeveloped, as to be cliché and boring. Someone who is a goody two-shoes simply for the sake of being a goody two-shoes, without any compelling background or reason for existence, would be a Mary Sue.
But you are likening someone like that to unbeatable NPCs. Unbeatable doesn't mean cliché, boring, or undeveloped. It just means beyond the PCs' ability to defeat.
There are many different definitions for "Mary Sue" in fiction, not just the one you note above. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MarySue
quote:
Why is it that (snip)
Let's make a list. You accuse me of:
- lack of development
- lack of creativity
You accuse my players of:
- requiring a victor in all interactions
- being flawed, having personal shortcomings
- being vain
- being emotionally hurt and needy
- not accepting reality
- driven by insecurity and inadequacy
- being crushed emotionally by real life
quote:
Gah! I guess all that ^^^ sounds snide and condescending and mean-spirited. Maybe it is, on some level.
Really? Just maybe?
Oh wait, there was more:
- refusing to accept their own limitations
- not having self-worth
So many assumptions, all personally directed and extremely negative. In your own words, condescending and mean-spirited. You don't even think that I can define a basic premise correctly.
Total and complete casual dismissiveness from another poster.
Anyone can play the game of assumptions. This can very easily be flipped around, after all. Would that add anything?
Nevermind.
|
"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 14:34:54 |
|
|
|
Nicolai Withander
Master of Realmslore
Denmark
1093 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2015 : 14:56:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Entromancer
If magic has rules, then you've explained how it works and now you are dealing in science.
Well from a gaming perspective, as mine is, I would find it hard to play without rules. And since Mystra banned some magic, then there obviously are rules.
I do however think that there should be not set limit to the possibilities of magic and that magic should come in different forms, and that it should be mysterious.
But within magic itself I find it best if it follows consistencies as to be reliable and thus applicable in correct measure.
|
|
|
|
Entromancer
Senior Scribe
USA
388 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2015 : 15:25:13
|
| Well, to elaborate I approach spellcasting...sort of like in organic synthesis where you start with something, add in additional reaction agents, and come up with something new. Except with more fantastic elements that are made realistic by the Realms' setting. This may be in the form of actual spell components ala Vance or a prayer of supplication to one's patron deity. I like to leave "wild magic" to the genasi and the dragonborn. |
"...the will is everything. The will to act."--Ra's Al Ghul
"Suffering builds character."--Talia Al Ghul |
|
|
|
Eilserus
Master of Realmslore
USA
1446 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2015 : 15:57:07
|
When magic is capable of sundering continents and stretching forward to the future and past, it's hard to imagine there being a limit on the possibilities of magic.
So Shaan the Serpent Queen disintegrated an entire island. How? No idea. My initial guess would be some sort of hanging, high powered spellweb or chain of spellwebs going off. Maybe players would see an outward spiraling spiderweb of winking lights preceding the disintegration. A sight like that and the question of how is that possible could kick off an entire series of adventures into researching spellwebs.
Please note I'm not saying players would learn how to disintegrate entire islands. That type of magic would wreck most campaigns. |
|
|
|
Eltheron
Senior Scribe
740 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2015 : 16:16:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eilserus
When magic is capable of sundering continents and stretching forward to the future and past, it's hard to imagine there being a limit on the possibilities of magic.
So Shaan the Serpent Queen disintegrated an entire island. How? No idea. My initial guess would be some sort of hanging, high powered spellweb or chain of spellwebs going off. Maybe players would see an outward spiraling spiderweb of winking lights preceding the disintegration. A sight like that and the question of how is that possible could kick off an entire series of adventures into researching spellwebs.
Please note I'm not saying players would learn how to disintegrate entire islands. That type of magic would wreck most campaigns.
In the hands of a player, this amount of power probably would wreck many campaigns. I agree.
But it begs the question: if this power is possible for an NPC, why is it forever out of reach to players? It's not like that NPC is a god, after all.
If you put a super special fancy magic sword (say, moon blades) into your story, eventually a lot of people will want moon blades. If you put epic spells into your game, why shouldn't players of wizards dream of casting it one day?
Especially since your players are supposed to be heroes. Especially when the core of the game for most people is about leveling up and getting better equipment and abilities.
Granted, if you only ever want to be a tourist in the Realms and prefer low-level, non-epic play, then sure - it makes sense to bump into people who are usually more powerful. But that's not everyone's preferred method of play or even fun to some players.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2015 : 16:31:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
So many assumptions, all personally directed and extremely negative. In your own words, condescending and mean-spirited. You don't even think that I can define a basic premise correctly.
Total and complete casual dismissiveness from another poster.
Well, I did ask, several times, since you never explained why you felt the way you did. You only explained how you feel.
I offered up some possible explanations in the absence of any of your own.
Now, you defensively dismiss my hypotheses and deride me for suggesting them.
But you still fail to offer any of your own.
quote:
Anyone can play the game of assumptions. This can very easily be flipped around, after all. Would that add anything?
Nevermind.
It seemed as if you had already done that by presuming to proclaim many NPCs as Mary Sues.
And now you threaten to retaliate against me by making more assumptions, apparently targeted against me personally.
There seems to be a pattern here, Eltheron. You don't explain the rationale behind or beneath your thought process. And you seem far too quick to turn everything into a conflict. You do it with the NPCs. And now you're hinting at doing it with me.
I'll admit it: sometimes I am a bit antagonistic in my own approach, too. I don't deny it. But in this case, I think I had just cause to posit my possible explanations. You still don't seem to have that, or at least you still haven't offered any.
Now again, why do you feel so compelled to know the precise limits of the NPCs? Why can't you just accept that they're light years ahead of you and you'll likely never catch up to them, so you're better off finding other ways of interacting with them besides trying to take them on? If you can't yet understand the rules that those NPCs operate by, why must you accuse their writers of breaking the rules? Why is everything attack, attack, attack? |
"'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"> |
|
|
|
Nicolai Withander
Master of Realmslore
Denmark
1093 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2015 : 17:04:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eilserus
When magic is capable of sundering continents and stretching forward to the future and past, it's hard to imagine there being a limit on the possibilities of magic.
So Shaan the Serpent Queen disintegrated an entire island. How? No idea. My initial guess would be some sort of hanging, high powered spellweb or chain of spellwebs going off. Maybe players would see an outward spiraling spiderweb of winking lights preceding the disintegration. A sight like that and the question of how is that possible could kick off an entire series of adventures into researching spellwebs.
Please note I'm not saying players would learn how to disintegrate entire islands. That type of magic would wreck most campaigns.
I really like this analogy and the idea of spell webs.
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
In the hands of a player, this amount of power probably would wreck many campaigns. I agree.
But it begs the question: if this power is possible for an NPC, why is it forever out of reach to players? It's not like that NPC is a god, after all.
If you put a super special fancy magic sword (say, moon blades) into your story, eventually a lot of people will want moon blades. If you put epic spells into your game, why shouldn't players of wizards dream of casting it one day?
Especially since your players are supposed to be heroes. Especially when the core of the game for most people is about leveling up and getting better equipment and abilities.
Granted, if you only ever want to be a tourist in the Realms and prefer low-level, non-epic play, then sure - it makes sense to bump into people who are usually more powerful. But that's not everyone's preferred method of play or even fun to some players.
I have to say, even though I know that its not for everybody, that I do when encountering magic I do not know or that seem more powerful or sophisticated than what I posses, I do seek it. Like a crazy person... Ingame that is! |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2015 : 17:10:12
|
BEAST, more than one person has stated you're coming on too strong. There's no reason for you to double down.
Talk about the premise, the claims and the ideas, and not about the people, OK? You could just as easily have spoken about player mindset in general terms in your last couple of posts, without making the subject Eltheron or his players. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Eilserus
Master of Realmslore
USA
1446 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2015 : 17:16:25
|
Well, if Shaan the Serpent Queen can cast such magic, and I don't know for sure, but my take is you can be sure she has some sort of agreement with Azuth and Mystra to not use this power to light off the next apocalypse or start disintegrating various cities across Faerun. Adventurers, being what they are, would probably do such a thing if given that power and probably be stripped of all ability to use magic forevermore very shortly after dropping a bomb somewhere, if they were ever allowed to use it in the first place.
Most of these high powered NPC's have been around in the Realms for a thousand plus years. It's almost unbelievable to me that the archmage adventurer who's lived a mere 70 years is capable of such magic. He's probably had some glimpses but he's got a few centuries to go to begin to understand such forces.
With that being said, if a group wants to have such magic in their campaign available to their players, go right ahead. I don't really know how you craft an adventure with that kind of power. What's the point of designing the mountain fortress of bad guys if the players can just disintegrate the entire mountain? Shrug. I don't have that answer.
Low level players aren't tourists to the Realms, they are the Realms. You don't need to be 32nd level to be a hero.
If a group wants to play to epic levels, more power to them. If there aren't rules for things a group or campaign wants to do, and since we're unlikely to see them in print, I'd just make them up. I have no problem throwing something out there that's potentially unbalanced, whether too weak or too strong, because I can always adjust it later as we test and see how things go. |
|
|
|
Eltheron
Senior Scribe
740 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2015 : 17:17:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
Why is everything attack, attack, attack?
I didn't start it. Why should I be compelled to answer anyone who automatically makes the very worst assumptions about me and my players?
And I didn't threaten or attack you, I merely pointed out that if I did the same thing as you did, it would be valueless. It would add nothing to the actual discussion other than back-and-forth accusations of the most negative and personal kind. Even so, you seem insistent on provoking a fight.
No one benefits from that, least of all me.
As for supposedly attacking the writers, I didn't do that. I said there was a problem with having dozens of NPCs that were not only more powerful, but so epic that their abilities were not even in the same ballpark and their limits, histories, and deeper motivations were unknown. If this was simply about players running PCs of lvl 1-3 and running into the occasional lvl 12 or lvl 15 NPC, I would not have even bothered posting.
|
"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 17:19:44 |
|
|
|
Eilserus
Master of Realmslore
USA
1446 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2015 : 17:20:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolai Withander
I have to say, even though I know that its not for everybody, that I do when encountering magic I do not know or that seem more powerful or sophisticated than what I posses, I do seek it. Like a crazy person... Ingame that is!
I think this is the perfect point and take-away to be had from this discussion. Do what works best for your group.
Who cares what other people do.
I always love new spells too. Still have fond memories of my first chain lightning spell cooking a bunch of Zhents in a dirty alley in Scornubel. Ahh, memories. :) |
|
|
|
The Hooded One
Lady Herald of Realmslore
5056 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2015 : 17:47:02
|
I realize I've missed a page of posts since I last set e-foot in the Keep, but . . .
Eltheron, your response is very well put and I essentially disagree with none of it.
EXCEPT, as BEAST pointed out, you used "Mary Sue" to mean too-powerful characters, rather than its founding and usual meaning of "creator's pet characters."
I don't disagree with the former, nor with many scribes' contention that certain characters seem to always wear unseen magical "plot armor." They do. (In large part because, yes, as works for hire, writers have to reach certain outcomes regarding particular characters, by the end of a narrative, regardless of code of ethics, wordcount, etc.)
I take issue with the thought that Ed has Mary Sues because he "plays favorites" with characters. He does not. Something many Realms fans and decryers seem to forget when they insist otherwise is that Ed created the vast majority of the supporting cast of NPCs in game products and in many novels (not just those with his name on the cover), so if he was playing favorites, they'd all succeed improbably, and all survive.
I quite agree that there are deus ex machina moments and really powerful characters and things that SEEM to break the rules. I grant that these can be frustrating to fiction readers, and would be considered unfair at many a gaming table.
Yet neither Ed nor I make any apologies for the Realms being a high-magic setting. It has been from the outset. And Ed's contribution to the Vancian magic system has been to emphasize the creativity of arcane magic (see Volo's Guide To All Things Magical: the spells and suggestions for roleplaying a solo "building yourself into a more masterful wizard" campaign), which serves to augment the mystery that should always be a part of magic, the "there are many roads to a fireball" element that often means gaming PCs in the Realms find themselves facing a foe that seems immune to, or to defy, what they think will take it down. Which if overdone by an unimaginative DM will be frustrating, but in the hands of a skilled one, who pays attention to player mood and pacing of a roleplaying experience, will just mean new and interesting challenges.
Not only will we never know all there is to know about magic in the Realms, that magic is (as has been clearly demonstrated by both different editions of the game and through Realms fiction) constantly changing.
So today's expert, post Spellplague, may "know for certain" very different things than a sage of arcane magic who was nigh-infallible in the 1350s DR.
I have great sympathy for the frustrations of those who read Realms fiction and play in Realms games where things happen that don't fit with their conceptions of "what Character X or Spell Y or Monster Z should be able to do." I chide Ed when I think he offends too much against this, in what he writes. However, I don't much sympathy for those who contend that Ed or anyone else is a "bad designer" when their character builds aren't optimized for min/maxers, or things aren't statted in a way that lets MY character beat down a god in SIX rounds instead of eleven, and flatly don't accept those who contend that "that's the direction D&D has developed, so all designers have to fall into line" with such demands and expectations. If freedom in society means anything when applied to gaming, it should be that in a roleplaying environment, we can all choose our preferred style of play, and not have someone else mock or belittle it as "wrong." Tournament play is different from a home campaign - - but then, I've seen Ed DM both, and in very different manners.
So in conclusion, I think we partially "talked past" each other, because I understand "Mary Sue" to mean something different than a too-powerful character (when the term was invented, the whole point of it was that many Mary Sues succeeded or survived improbably because they were so clueless or lacking in power that they shouldn't have been able to prevail against vastly more powerful or competent foes).
Heh. Does any of this make any sense? (I can resort to the cheesy and take off my clothes and say it all again!) 
love,
THO |
Edited by - The Hooded One on 15 Jan 2015 17:47:33 |
|
|
|
GMWestermeyer
Learned Scribe
USA
215 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2015 : 17:59:23
|
Well, I thought my post would cause debate teeth gnashing, I was hoping it would inspire thought as well but I saw no evidence of that.
Of course magic has 'rules' and that doesn't make it science and it doesn't reduce the mystery. It increases verisimilitude, it increases the ability of the reader to immerse themselves in the story. This isn't something I'm creating out of thin air but well known concepts that those who study fantasy genre writing seriously have long known. The rules for magic do not have to be as formal as they are for the game, but they do have to exist. The fact that authors so often ignore the D&D rules (casting spells without verbal, somatic, or material components, for example) is one good reason so much D&D fiction is subpar crap and that which is good cannot be told apart from Game of Thrones, ect.
And simply saying "If Ed writes it then it is automatically canon and the rules" addresses the problem NOT AT ALL. Ed's magic still needs to be consistent within his own stories or its just... well, what it is, illogical hodgepodge that changes as the whim takes him while writing.
Drama, conflict, and tension in a story are best when they grow organically, and one method for creating them organically within the story, rather the artificially through author fiat, is by using the strictures the 'magic rules' emplace.
|
"Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that is even remotely true."
Homer Simpson, _The Simspons_ |
|
|
|
GMWestermeyer
Learned Scribe
USA
215 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2015 : 18:08:03
|
As for powerful characters, or Mary sue characters... Ed's excuse of 'controlling PCs' is crap. I've always controlled my players with lower level Pcs, society, circumstances, and NPC cleverness... if you reach for 12th level wizard to keep a 5th level wizard from destroying the village you designed... well, I out grew that level of DMing around 15 or so. It is simply silly. Do you think you can wander around killing and destroying things in real life because 'higher level, powerful NPCs' exist to keep you from doing so? <snort>
Ed has too many characters who are Mary Sues. If they weren't, they wouldn't all essentially mirror his attitudes towards sex, nudity, and life.
Anyway, I doubt any of this will matter. The FR fans left are much like the Gygax fanatics over in the Greyhawk corners of the net.
I don't enjoy bashing Ed like this. The man is a genius at campaign setting building. The Volo guides are still, IMO, the best RPG accessories ever written. He just sucks at writing fiction. :( I kinda do too. We can't all be good at everything. |
"Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that is even remotely true."
Homer Simpson, _The Simspons_ |
|
|
|
The Hooded One
Lady Herald of Realmslore
5056 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2015 : 18:16:40
|
Really?
"And simply saying "If Ed writes it then it is automatically canon and the rules" addresses the problem NOT AT ALL. Ed's magic still needs to be consistent within his own stories or its just... well, what it is, illogical hodgepodge that changes as the whim takes him while writing."
Sorry, GM Westermeyer, you've just demonstrated you don't understand AT ALL both how Ed writes, and how Realms novels are edited. There is no "whim takes him." (Since SPELLFIRE, every single one of Ed's novels has had to be outlined, in great detail, and discussed in-house with designers and then approved by editors, before the books are written. The one he's working on right now will incorporate many, many tiny details because Wizards wants them in there. This is NOT something new.) And I know you and Ed have e-talked, over the years, and you know better. Or should.
And as for casting spells without verbal, somatic, or material components: doing so is within the rules. Depends on which official D&D® rules you pick.
From the outset, Ed has used his novels WITH EDITORIAL APPROVAL AND ENCOURAGEMENT as one place new magic is shown to Realms fans. Don't like it? Too bad, because that's an integral part of the nature of the setting, and has been from the beginning.
The rest of your post (that magic should have internal logic and consistency, and demonstrably doing so makes for better storytelling) I agree with completely.
If you've seen no evidence of thought in all the posts that various scribes have made in this thread, then you must be dismissing ideas and positions you don't agree with as not being evidence of thinking. Pooh to that! Unworthy of any scribe.
And yet, after all this,
I do mean it when I sign off:
love,
THO
|
Edited by - The Hooded One on 15 Jan 2015 18:17:25 |
|
|
|
Eltheron
Senior Scribe
740 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2015 : 18:39:10
|
Thank you, THO, that was helpful and extends the discussion.
As to "Mary Sues" being in FR, at this point I'd like to clarify something. I said that some people would call the epic-powered characters Mary Sues, and yes - I do personally still feel that they're Mary Sues. Largely because they're not just beyond-epic, but because the vast majority of us only see and know about a fraction of who and what that NPC actually is and does. We don't know their purpose, their limits, their deeper motivations, so in many cases the only thing we know is that they are vastly hyper-intelligent, immensely hyper-aware of various secrets, and immensely powerful - far beyond what is possible even in the Epic Player's Handbook. So from our viewpoint, "Mary Sues" is pretty much all they CAN be, because we don't have insider knowledge. And there are SO MANY of them, it feels top-heavy.
It's not always the case that people who have problems implementing and integrating these types of NPCs (you may prefer "beyond epic" where others feel Author Avatar or even DMPC might be more accurate) only want to take them down and overpower them. My players and I have zero interest in fighting any good-aligned epic character as some kind of personal achievement. At the same time, that doesn't mean some people don't enjoy doing that - and it doesn't have to imply any deep real life personal flaws; it's a game, they find challenges fun, that's all. Others players may like the idea of thinking ahead about their current characters, "is that magnificent (power/item) possible for me? How do I accomplish this, in game rules?" Still others, as DMs, might be interested in using the "beyond epic" character and not accidentally have them do something completely contrary to what their goals and purposes really are - as revealed in some future novel.
Absolutely, what many people find fun and attractive about the Realms is that it's high magic or what some call High Fantasy. But to those of us who DM, and only have these shells of characters that are beyond epic, it really would help to know quite a bit more about their deeper motivations and also their purpose, goals and limits. After 20+ years of knowing about Larloch and the Srinshee, I don't think that's a terribly unreasonable request, so we can use them more effectively - as Ed intended for them to be used, and not just as "Mary Sues" (to be honest, I agree it's not the best term, because many people use it differently - but the definition is indeed wider than the original use).
Whatever we call them, it's difficult to track them or even understand them (much less utilize them effectively) if we don't really have enough information about them. And I realize that an information dump on such characters could potentially impact the novels. Spoilers and all that. But what's flashy and fun for the novels can sometimes be very bad for us on the gaming side. Novels have taken precedence over the game, and from my perspective it's only getting stronger.
|
"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 19:07:01 |
|
|
|
GMWestermeyer
Learned Scribe
USA
215 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2015 : 19:17:30
|
You can't excuse bad writing by blaming your editors. Especially not when you stick with the same editors over and over again for years. I don't buy that excuse.
And Ed's campaign setting writing is edited as well, and yet it is excellent. Coherent, fascinating and highly detailed.
He's just not very good at narrative fiction. |
"Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that is even remotely true."
Homer Simpson, _The Simspons_ |
|
|
|
GMWestermeyer
Learned Scribe
USA
215 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2015 : 19:21:13
|
And please don't say Ed has advanced Vancian magic, he obviously dislikes the whole concept. How often do you see one of his fiction characters memorizing spells? He ither makes them super high level so they can be assumed to have a huge list, or he simply gives them some new 'power' he's invented <spellfire-cough> that doesn't require memorization.
I haven't had a chance to read his pre-D&D tales but if they used Vancian magic I'd be astounded.
Though Ed isn't alone in this. Almost NONE of the D&D fiction authors have ever truly used Vancian magic. |
"Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that is even remotely true."
Homer Simpson, _The Simspons_ |
|
|
|
The Hooded One
Lady Herald of Realmslore
5056 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2015 : 20:03:13
|
Heh. If Jack was still with us, he'd no doubt be amused.
Considering all the discussions Ed had with him about the finer details of his Dying Earth tales, and specifically the ins and outs of memorizing spells with great mental effort. So, no, unlike your utterly unwarranted and untrue judgment, Ed is NOT someone who "obviously dislikes the whole concept."
And considering I did personally witness some of their talks, and know whereof I speak, I AM going to say Ed HAS advanced Vancian magic.
There, I'll say it again. 
Because unlike some scribes, I cleave to the truth.
Nor has Ed "stuck" with the same editors "over and over again for years." Again, I'm afraid your ignorance is showing. Editors are assigned by the publisher, not "picked" by a writer. Ed's Realms novels have had at least eight different editors I can think of, just off the top of my head. (And running through seven of his non-Realms novels in my head, I come up with six DIFFERENT editors.)
Facts, Paul, facts. Let's deal in facts, shall we? Not "excuses" that you get to buy or not buy, but facts. Hmmph.
And the whole point of spellfire wasn't to create super-magic, it was a plot device to interest and involve many power groups of the Realms in a naive young female protagonist, and somehow keep her alive for more than a few pages. Which was why it was editorially decided that Shandril would ultimately NOT survive. The intent was that spellfire would be a one-off, not a shiny new power in every PC's toolbox. SPELLFIRE was published in an era when it was firm publisher policy that PCs NOT be able to do in-game everything they read in the books. You may not like that policy, but you should have THAT argument with the old, vanished TSR, not with Ed.
You may be right in your judgment that Ed is "just not very good at narrative fiction." Yet I doubt you're aware of half of his writing, being as he ghost-writes so much, under pseudonyms, and sometimes collaborating with, or finishing up for, famous writers. Aping their styles so well that he doesn't get detected - - which is why he gets hired for such work.
I worked as an editor in mainstream and genre publishing for twenty-odd years (though not in gaming, or gaming fiction), and I consider Ed one of the better writers. Not top-rank, standout, but in the forefront of the "useful superior workhorse" brigade. With none of the prima donna issues the top-rankers often gave us.
But then, that's just my judgment. Though I'm afraid that after re-reading your last three posts, I tend to think it's better informed than yours.
love,
THO
|
|
|
|
GMWestermeyer
Learned Scribe
USA
215 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2015 : 20:24:28
|
Well, it's more personally invested then mine, certainly.
Ed's FR writing, as published, does not indicate a strong attachment to the Vancian magic systems _as expressed in D&D_. I stand firmly by my statement that his writing seems continually to circumvent or ignore the strictures on Vancian magic - especially as expressed in D&D.
I stand by the editor statements as well. All the work he has published and only 8 editors over the years? that is the opposite of a high turn over.
I've read both versions of Spellfire. There are no discernible differences between the two in quality or plot. Like all of his fiction, the pace is too frenetic, motivations obscure or never detailed, and the magic inconsistent. Like all his fiction, it has excellent settings, occasionally great individual scenes, and some sweet descriptions. Ed needs a more forceful editor, IMO, to slash away unneeded verbiage and force him to focus on one plot at a time. Too bad the editors indulge him too much.
I can't judge his ghost-writng, since it is ghost writing. I'm write for a living myself, non-fiction, and I have too much respect for editors (jerks though they can be) to simply lame the faults of his writing on them.
Especially when he has produced superlative game book work. Also edited. Consistently superlative game book work. Just as his novels are consistently bad. |
"Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that is even remotely true."
Homer Simpson, _The Simspons_ |
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6447 Posts |
|
|
GMWestermeyer
Learned Scribe
USA
215 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2015 : 20:40:15
|
I'm not being disrespectful, I'm providing honest, educated criticism.
Whether or not that is nice is a different question I won't address. |
"Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that is even remotely true."
Homer Simpson, _The Simspons_ |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Realms authors who follow the rule books
