| Author |
 Topic  |
|
GMWestermeyer
Learned Scribe
USA
215 Posts |
 Posted - 22 Apr 2011 : 02:39:38
|
Coming back to the Realms this Spring has mostly been a joy. Mostly! The old pains from 3e and 4e are still there but I've been pleasently surprised to find some fine new Realms writers, and excstatic to spend some time with old friends. I'm actually happy now that I never read beyond Daughter of the Drow the first time around, since I get to discover a whole EC trilogy as if it were brand new. :)
But rereading Realms fiction has brough back up a huge pet peeve of mine.
WHY CAN'T FR AUTHORS STICK TO THE VANCIAN MAGIC SYSTEM!?!?!?
Drives me insane. It is not a difficult magic system. It has nice, clear rules, obvious balancing points, and lost of details to hang description on... and I can't think of a single Realms novelist who really sticks to it.
Ed, who has been running a Realms AD&D game since the 1970s and has written a huge number of D&D spells and spellbooks for the system is one of the worst offenders! I mean, I can't think of anyone who has demonstrated over the past decades a better, consistent understanding of the Vancian systems ins and outs yet he consistently ignorews the Vancian system in his novels. 
It's a pet peeve of mine. There are two good choices for magic in a fantasy tale. One is to go completely mysterious with virtually no explanations. This system works well for very high fantasy tales, like Lord of the Rings and 'Sword and Sorcery' style tales, ala Conan or Lankhmar. In the former the mystery is part of the point, in the latter the main characters don't know very much about magic themselves, and so the mystery agains fits the atmosphere.
The second choice is to use a very clear magical system complete with strengths and weaknesses. FR tales have a mage as a main character. Magic is common in the Realms and it is supposed to follow well laid out rules, rules clearly spelled out in the rule books. These sorts of tales only work when the magic rules are followed, when they are not followed that greatly harms suspension of disbelief.
Now, obviously I'm a bit of an obsessive and I know these systems very well, so many will dismiss my rant as merely typical obsessive fanboyism. But I think one reason others do not take FR novels as seriously as they should is because even those who do not know the system sense subconsciously that the magic system in the novels is 'untethered' and inconsistent, and subconsciously this impacts their own suspension of disbelief while reaidng the books.
Anyway, I still love the books. But I've wanted to rant on this for a long time. :)
|
"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 - 22 Apr 2011 : 03:30:50
|
By all means rant. It's your right.
However, Ed is NOT "one of the worst offenders," and no amount of claiming he is on your part will make it so.
As one of his players, I can tell you that EVERY spell hurled in the "home" Realms campaign is worked out, detailed, and balanced. As are all of the spell-duels and castings in his Realms fiction.
What they are not, is always published in game form prior to their fictional appearance. However, they are always worked out in full game detail, and in the days of the Realms "traffic cop" were submitted along with the first drafts of novels (AND approved). Sometimes editorial rewritings/abridgements of Ed's prose have muddied things here and there, but as someone who has seen the originals, Ed works it all out.
He does not, however, both from his own preferences and thanks to specific editorial commandments not to do so (that have varied from time to time, but are in print in several of the internal writers' guides), write scenes so that a reader who is also a gamer can identify specific spells with the rounds they were cast, dice of damage, and so on. That's been a publishers' no-no for most of the time the Realms has been published, and as the Realms books are works-for-hire, if a writer doesn't play by their guidelines, the editors rewrite.
(Ed also uses quite a bit of other Realmsian magical mechanisms in his fiction, that aren't part of the mainstream arcane Vancian castings; he hasn't managed table magic yet, but I've seen a lot of the others, such as the runic ones.)
However, I have sat at a table with Gary Gygax and Jack Vance (yes, Jack Vance, who BTW is still alive today but too blind to write) and Ed, and discussed handling Vancian spells fictionally, so I KNOW how D&D and Jack go together, and what was decided, AND THAT ED STICKS TO IT.
Sorry, P, but you've poked me in one of my sore spots. The study of Jack's magic (both in his Dying Earth works and the Michael Shea extensions of them, and in gaming) is one of my personal enthusiasms, and something I've enjoyed working with Ed on over the years for fun, and I will NOT sit silent as you misrepresent Ed's writing on this particular topic.
Yes, "misrepresent."
I know how many hours Ed spent talking things through with Jack and Gary. I had the honour to be allowed to sit in and to contribute. And I didn't see you sitting there.
THO |
 |
|
|
Caolin
Senior Scribe
769 Posts |
Posted - 22 Apr 2011 : 04:03:01
|
Not to nit pick or pile on, but there is no magic system in Lord of the Rings. Matter of fact, LotR is almost devoid of anything looking like a magic spell. Most of what little magic is performed in the novels would be considered sorcerous.
On your main point, I do lament the shift away from the Vancian system of magic. I blame this mainly on the desire to make DnD more streamlined and easier to play during the change to 4E. This is forcing many FR authors to change how they write mages. So I wouldn't go blaming the authors on this one.
As for Ed's writing, I 100% disagree. One of the things I love about Ed's novels is that he keeps his work edition agnostic for the most part. He usually keeps close to the core rules of the orignial the game rules just enough to keep the novel grounded. But I always feel like I am being told a story that he wants to tell, not a story that shows off the latest and greatest rule changes. |
|
|
|
Tasker Daze
Seeker
84 Posts |
Posted - 22 Apr 2011 : 04:43:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by GMWestermeyer
But I think one reason others do not take FR novels as seriously as they should is because even those who do not know the system sense subconsciously that the magic system in the novels is 'untethered' and inconsistent, and subconsciously this impacts their own suspension of disbelief while reaidng the books.
Your saying if someone doesn't know theres a rule system, it'll bug them that a book doesn't stick to it? That's the most rediculous thing I've heard all week, and I'm in customer service.  |
. |
|
|
|
GMWestermeyer
Learned Scribe
USA
215 Posts |
Posted - 22 Apr 2011 : 06:08:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Hooded One
As one of his players, I can tell you that EVERY spell hurled in the "home" Realms campaign is worked out, detailed, and balanced. As are all of the spell-duels and castings in his Realms fiction.
I thought we had agreed not to pull the 'editor card' anymore? Ed choose to be published by these editors, his name is on the book. I have to judge the work by what is published.
Anyway, I just don't see it in his fiction. Oh, I'm sure he does in his home game, Ed's spell design work is justly famous. But it just doesn't happen in the novels. I do see him inventing new ways to NOT use the Vancian system over and over again (Spellfire, Chosen, and so on and so forth) but I never see him following the rules for a given spell and his mages never seem to take the time to study spells.
I recall clearly his Mgae Fair short story where he has a fireball spell not following the rules. Yes, its for the plot in that tale, but that's my point. When you bend the magic rules over and over for plot, instead of treating them as a firm fact the plot must bend around, the rules become meaningless, like soft rubber.
One TSR novel that I recall off the top of my head followed the Vancian system extremely well was Dragons of Autumn Twilight. Later DL novels lost that clarity, unfortunately.
quote:
Originally posted by Tasker Daze
quote:
Originally posted by GMWestermeyer
But I think one reason others do not take FR novels as seriously as they should is because even those who do not know the system sense subconsciously that the magic system in the novels is 'untethered' and inconsistent, and subconsciously this impacts their own suspension of disbelief while reaidng the books.
Your saying if someone doesn't know theres a rule system, it'll bug them that a book doesn't stick to it? That's the most rediculous thing I've heard all week, and I'm in customer service.
Reread it slowly and consider it with out prejudice and I bet you will see my point. |
"Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that is even remotely true."
Homer Simpson, _The Simspons_ |
|
|
|
Alystra Illianniis
Great Reader
USA
3750 Posts |
Posted - 22 Apr 2011 : 06:37:43
|
| To what spells are you referring? The fireball you mentioned doesn't strike me as ignoring rules, from what I recall. In fact, I'd be very hard-pressed to think of a spell in his works which does not follow the rules as I understand them. Just because a particular spell has never been "officially" given stats does not mean it breaks or bends rules or ignores them. In most of the FR novels I've read where magic is used, the spells are quite recognizable, and thosethat aren't, generally seem to have some clear, rules-valid effect. |
The Goddess is alive, and magic is afoot.
"Where Science ends, Magic begins" -Spiral, Uncanny X-Men #491
"You idiots! You've captured their STUNT doubles!" -Spaceballs
Lothir's character background/stats: http://forum.candlekeep.com/pop_profile.asp?mode=display&id=5469
My stories:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/Mickeys_Comic_Tavern/index.php?showforum=188
Lothir, courtesy of Sylinde (Deviant Art)/Luaxena (Chosen of Eilistraee)
http://sylinde.deviantart.com/#/d2z6e4u |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3741 Posts |
Posted - 22 Apr 2011 : 06:50:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
To what spells are you referring? The fireball you mentioned doesn't strike me as ignoring rules, from what I recall. In fact, I'd be very hard-pressed to think of a spell in his works which does not follow the rules as I understand them. Just because a particular spell has never been "officially" given stats does not mean it breaks or bends rules or ignores them.
-Exactly what I was thinking. It wasn't a Fireball spell, as described in the various Player's Handbooks, it was a specific derivative, "Elminster's Flaming Ball of Fire" (or whoever it was that cast the spell in the aforementioned short story- I think it was Elminster, but...). Simple solution, logical solution. When you're a magician as old and experienced as he is, who seemingly has a lot of spare time, magical experimentation should be a given. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
|
|
|
The Red Walker
Great Reader
USA
3567 Posts |
Posted - 22 Apr 2011 : 12:53:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by GMWestermeyer
quote:
Originally posted by The Hooded One
As one of his players, I can tell you that EVERY spell hurled in the "home" Realms campaign is worked out, detailed, and balanced. As are all of the spell-duels and castings in his Realms fiction.
I thought we had agreed not to pull the 'editor card' anymore? Ed choose to be published by these editors, his name is on the book. I have to judge the work by what is published.
Anyway, I just don't see it in his fiction. Oh, I'm sure he does in his home game, Ed's spell design work is justly famous. But it just doesn't happen in the novels. I do see him inventing new ways to NOT use the Vancian system over and over again (Spellfire, Chosen, and so on and so forth) but I never see him following the rules for a given spell and his mages never seem to take the time to study spells.
I've yet to meet the reader(myself included) who laments a novels lack of wasting words on a Mage reading their spell book. It's something I'm glad mostly takes place off stage.
And the "editor card" is more than valid, how about we play the quit mis-representing things when it's convenient for me and stop throwing Molotov cocktails card?
|
A little nonsense now and then, relished by the wisest men - Willy Wonka
"We need men who can dream of things that never were." -
John F. Kennedy, speech in Dublin, Ireland, June 28, 1963
|
|
|
|
Quale
Master of Realmslore
1757 Posts |
Posted - 22 Apr 2011 : 14:16:10
|
| Vancian system is interesting with characters such as Cugel or Nifft, but in high magic worlds it's more suitable as a wild talent, not wizardry. |
|
|
|
Thieran
Learned Scribe
Germany
293 Posts |
Posted - 22 Apr 2011 : 14:18:49
|
| Without wanting to take a particular stance here or referring to this particular discussion, I must say that in general I support GMWestermeyer's call for not playing the "editor card" too often - if one is not allowed "to judge the work by what is published", at least in one's initial post - when people come in to explain the background because they know the specific circumstances, then that changes things -, then we can quit starting discussions about many aspects of novels, not only author-related ones, altogether. Understand it as a call for no double standards - strangely enough, nobody steps in to say that it's all the editor's merit when an author is praised. |
|
|
|
The Hooded One
Lady Herald of Realmslore
5056 Posts |
Posted - 22 Apr 2011 : 15:01:26
|
Hmmm.
"I thought we had agreed not to pull the 'editor card' anymore? Ed choose to be published by these editors, his name is on the book. I have to judge the work by what is published."
No, nothing of the kind. YOU wanted to set this rule; I, like most scribes, haven't explicitly accepted it - - and won't. I can't recall the proclamation that made you emperor, so "pfft" to that. Moreover, you missed my point: as an editor, though not of TSR or WotC works, I told you explicitly that there have been, for most of the time Realms fiction has been published, clear rules constraining writers from naming specific spells, using specific magical mechanices, etc. in their Realms fiction. As I said, this is a sore point for me, because I've seen Ed's original early manuscripts, that contained fully-worded spell incantations and all the details, so I know he wrote them - - and they got edited out.
THAT's why you "just don't see it in his fiction."
I fully agree you do see other forms of magic. some of them "flow" much better for storytelling purposes, AND contain mystery that published game rules can't, and that's deliberate.
No, the MageFair story doesn't break the game rules for the spell THAT PERTAINED TO THE GAME WHEN THE STORY WAS WRITTEN, when there was no ceiling on level-related dice of damage. Read the full, early DRAGON articles when Gary Gygax (and what he said, at that time, about game rules was canon by definition, Dave Arneson having temporarily left the scene and DRAGON explicitly stating this was the case, with gamers having no other source of D&D lore but TSR games, magazines, and books) said that OF COURSE a sufficiently high-level mage could trade damage dice for volume. Yes, it's a variant, but it's a variant that FOLLOWS THE RULES. And in Ed's original MS of that story turnover, that was all explained. Again, it was edited out due to an editorial policy.
Yes, a reader unfamiliar with the game has to "judge the work by what is published." A reader like you who is familiar with the game, and has been for years, knows better unless he/she chooses not to, which as far as I can tell, you are willfully choosing to do.
You write: "Ed choose to be published by these editors, his name is on the book." What that tells me is that you can't or are choosing not to understand the nature of work-for-hire publishing. I'll accept that from a young child, but not from someone your age, P. YOu know better, or should.
What the rules of the real world tell us, pertaining to work for hire, is that every word Ed writes can be changed without his agreement or foreknowledge - - meaning he often discovers changes only when he buys a copy of the published work, and not before then. Ideally, he gets galleys (these days, often e-drafts) to check, especially of copyedits, but that certainly hasn't always happened.
So your stance is the equivalent of saying "Because Particular Guy A founded this country or company or political party, he's forever responsible for every detail of what it becomes after it leaves his control."
I reject that, and dispute your right to make that judgment in the first place. You've been told repeatedly what the conditions are, and you simply start new threads complaining about how you wish Ed or other FR writers would behave differently.
Now, I've already clearly told you that Ed works all the magic out (heck, doing so is a source of fun for him, and the new and variant spells he comes up with are design-checked by staffers and have often appeared in print elsewhere) and you blithely dismiss this.
Keep this up, and I'll have to blithely dismiss you. I expect better of a grognard. NOT happy lockstep agreement, but an ability to accept real-world conditions and history.
There's something I find I have to repeat when training young, green editors: "Never mistake your personal preferences for what is 'right' or 'correct.'"
You're neither young nor green, so repetition SHOULD be unnecessary.
I happen to agree with you that every time spellcasting magic (NOT "nature" magic or silver fire or other inherent powers, but spellcasting) deviates from the Vancian, it weakens the stakes and how convincing a given Realms fantasy story is.
But I don't agree with you that this is the fault of Ed or any of the other writers, given the existence of an on-and-off deliberate editorial policy NOT to clearly follow or show adherence to game rules (you post that Ed's "mages never seem to take the time to study spells," and this is quite true, but that is something SPECIFICALLY prohibited in at least one version of the internal editorial guidelines, which states that studying should happen "offstage" and adds that writers hould always remember that "fiction writing is not game play."
I think that policy is bad, but to argue against it is the equivalent of telling a policeman you shouldn't get a speeding ticket because the law as written is bad. Quite possibly true, but irrelevant at the time.
Don't agree with this post or my earlier one? Well, I'll use your own words back at you: "Reread it slowly and consider it without prejudice and I bet you will see my point." I don't expect you to agree with it, I get that variance from the Vancian drives you "insane," but if you want to fix this, buy WotC from Hasbro, take over the publishing of Realms novels, and Make It So.
Otherwise, dear, you're just ranting in the wind.
love,
THO
|
|
|
|
Malcolm
Learned Scribe
242 Posts |
Posted - 22 Apr 2011 : 15:06:44
|
Heh. I see your editor card, and I'll raise you Jack Vance and Gary Gygax and Ed sitting around a table.
THAT'S what I want to hear more about, not GMWestermeyer being grouchy about one more Realms complaint of his that he can't fix. Whatever happened to the energy Eric Boyd, George Krashos, Brian James, Brian Cortijo and others would put into explaining away inconsistencies and adding new color to the Realms? Why is it always complaints and refusals to accept what others say about them? |
|
|
|
IanVeers
Acolyte
8 Posts |
Posted - 22 Apr 2011 : 15:17:08
|
| Just keep telling yourself it's just a game. It's nigh impossible to write out rules and mathematical equations for everything that happens in a story. No matter how hard you try. That's when the DM needs to take control and mold things. I had someone tell me they wanted their fireball to be purple. I said: "Ok but it still does fire damage.". Or they want the magic missles to be shaped like skulls. My response: "Ok, it's still a magic missle". Like when one of the Seven splays out 12 spell bolts and the rules say they only go up to fire. It doesn't cause me to flip out. It does however get me thinking: "Could I make up a spell like that?". The fiction is just there to get your gray matter moving. The rest is up to you. |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 22 Apr 2011 : 16:42:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by GMWestermeyer
But rereading Realms fiction has brough back up a huge pet peeve of mine.
WHY CAN'T FR AUTHORS STICK TO THE VANCIAN MAGIC SYSTEM!?!?!?
Because not all FR magic adheres to the Vancian magic system?
But I'll get there. One other side note first:
quote:
Originally posted by Thieran
Understand it as a call for no double standards - strangely enough, nobody steps in to say that it's all the editor's merit when an author is praised.
Well, let me be the perceived* first to give credit where credit is due, and say that I have been blessed with great editors and been very happy with their work. Several scenes (not to name them particularly, because it was a long time ago) have indeed come off better for their advice and fixes, and I'm very grateful.
(*I say "perceived" because I know lots of authors who have done this, including myself, but I agree that it would be nice to see it more.)
Now then, re: the OP, when dealing with writing magic in general, you have to strike the proper balance between the unexplained fantastic (magic as a wonder) and the mundane mechanical (magic as a tool like any other). I think a strict game rules version of magic tends to fall on the *mundane* end, particularly when things get expressed mostly in terms of the mechanics of the game.
This may not be a problem for people who play the game and so recognize and connect with those mechanics, but for people who *don't* play the game, it loses a lot of ground. Perhaps one of the reaons they don't play is that they WANT magic to be fantastic and cool and not just a different sort of hammer.
Writing is a balancing act, where you want to appeal to all sorts of readers with all sorts of expectations. You can't please everyone all the time, so you just try to please as many people as possible as much as possible.
I have read numerous Realms novels that come across as extremely gamey. I can tell you exactly what spells are being cast at which time, what saving throws are being made and which blown, etc., etc., even going so far as to say "this author really liked this particular book" or even "this character has these particular magic-augmenting feats." These novels are following the rules *extremely* closely, with sometimes good, sometimes detrimental effect on me as a reader. Then again, I'm me, and someone else may have a different reaction. The best rule in this situation is to ask yourself "does it serve the story?"
Also, it seems to me the "Vancian" system is marked by memorization (or at least "preparation") of spells. This is something that is definitely present in D&D, but it isn't the *only* way magic works. There are sorcerers, favored souls, spell-like abilities, supernatural talents, etc., etc., etc. Also, the rules *encourage* you to improvise: to throw out rules that don't work for you and improvise your own rules. In my home games, I have players who reflavor their spells from usage to usage, never really casting the same spell twice (even though mechanically it's the same).
If you're unwilling to accept a little ambiguity in a world as diverse as this, then you're imposing a rigid expectation on your fiction that's a little unrealistic, and fantasy might just not be your genre. (Scifi is WAY better about trying to explain everything consistently.)
Lastly, along the lines of IanVeers's point, while I'm not saying you should definitely do this, I will say that you might enjoy fantasy a little more if you give it the benefit of the doubt. Just because something isn't instantly explained or lined out in specific rules doesn't mean that it *doesn't* have an explanation, and just because the author doesn't give you that explanation (which would be very scifi, not fantasy) doesn't mean you can't make it up yourself. Something with a possible explanation is still possible.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
Edited by - Erik Scott de Bie on 22 Apr 2011 16:44:22 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4441 Posts |
Posted - 22 Apr 2011 : 18:04:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by GMWestermeyer
But rereading Realms fiction has brough back up a huge pet peeve of mine.
WHY CAN'T FR AUTHORS STICK TO THE VANCIAN MAGIC SYSTEM!?!?!?
Drives me insane. It is not a difficult magic system. It has nice, clear rules, obvious balancing points, and lost of details to hang description on... and I can't think of a single Realms novelist who really sticks to it.
Ok, could you provide an example besides the Mage Fair one because I remember that short story and his Fireball could easily have been augmented with any number of Meta-Magic effects including Maximize Spell, Enlarge Spell, Explosive Spell, etc. And I really don't think I need to know if he's using these abilities or not as they don't serve a purpose in furthing the plot.
As for the Vancian system, well I've some strong dislikes for it and everything it represents so I don't think my opinion could be considered impartial. But, I do know how the system work and nothing FR related really breaks how the system works. We know, and I've read, where wizards need to prepare spells and such but that's more of a mechanical aspect that really don't need to be expressed in novels (espically with word counts). Think of it like an action movie where the heroes don't re-load their weapons. We, as the audience, are pretty much expected to read between the lines that they reload off camera. Same I think could be applied to FR novels and that style of magic system.
|
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 22 Apr 2011 : 18:38:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
We know, and I've read, where wizards need to prepare spells and such but that's more of a mechanical aspect that really don't need to be expressed in novels (espically with word counts). Think of it like an action movie where the heroes don't re-load their weapons. We, as the audience, are pretty much expected to read between the lines that they reload off camera. Same I think could be applied to FR novels and that style of magic system.
This is an amusing point to me, as I was recently on a writing workshop panel that soundly criticized the "limitless supply of bullets" issue. 
Let's go with the Legolas analogy: your elf never runs out of arrows. I think as long as it's plausible--i.e., you've given your character enough time to get prepared by making or buying more arrows, the character isn't naked or lost his quiver at the time, etc.--then the reader doesn't need to know exactly where all those arrows are coming from. I don't think I need to tell the reader (or even really write down myself) all the spells the wizard has prepared going into every battle . . . unless the scarcity is going to be a plot issue, in which case I should make the point that the wizard makes a clear choice to prepare fireball instead of lightning bolt, only to face a bunch of fire elementals.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Lily M Green
Learned Scribe
Australia
115 Posts |
Posted - 22 Apr 2011 : 21:22:27
|
| Okay, so I really am new to this but... because (as I've said before, sorry) my experience of FR has come, in the main, from playing the computer games, which you can play with very little knowledge of 'the rules', when I pick up a novel I really don't care whether or not a spell cast fits with the rules of the game. What I care about is the effect it has and how well it is conveyed within the writing. For example, I like to know that a healing spell cast by one individual is completely different to that cast by another (Yes, I know that's divine so it's a little different). Or that as your mage casts Melf's Acid Arrow it has a smell like summer stormclouds and makes the hair of everyone within a thirty foot radius stand up before exploding in a shower of citrusy colour that stings your eyes. Yes, it's a little verbose but what I care about is how evocatively the casting conveyed rather than the mechanics of the thing. |
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy, and taste good with ketchup.
A Dark Alliance - Beyond Baldur's Gate |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4689 Posts |
Posted - 22 Apr 2011 : 22:18:02
|
| Lilly, The OP appears to have issues. I would advise you not to worry much about this scroll. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
GMWestermeyer
Learned Scribe
USA
215 Posts |
Posted - 22 Apr 2011 : 23:42:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Lilly, The OP appears to have issues. I would advise you not to worry much about this scroll.
Apparently.
<sigh>
I though using the word 'rant' would clue folks in that I was venting a bit.
I feel like the lone Star Trek fan at a George Lucas speech... and as an actual, long time FR fan, I have to say, "back the frick off people." My original post was filled with compliments to FR writers, including Ed, and you can disagree with my premise (FR authors rarely follow the established rules for magic) without also attacking me or questioning my fandom. Calm down and read a post before reflexively attacking it. I'm not here to be your pinata, and if you find my posts that disconcerting don't read them.
I don't know enough about the 3e or 4e magic systems to judge how well the FR novels follow them. My understanding is that neither is a Vancian system. I suppose I should have caveated that in my OP, I keep forgetting that I know longer know the 'real' Realms system.
As for the editor thing, I never thought I was establishing the damn rule, I thought everyone else had come to a group consensus on the subject. I certainly am not trying to be 'emperor.' THO, I accept your statement that the editors said don't use spell names. Seems like a stupid editorial decision to me, but regardless, Ed and the other FR writers apparently accepted it and kept writing. I could send Ed an email vetting all of my comments to see if the credit or blame belongs to him or the editors before I post on any given Ed work but I suspect that would get very tiresome for him very quickly.
THO, I know you think I am attacking your friend personally but I am NOT. I am just evaluating his work as a gamer and a reader, treating it with the same critical eye I treat everything else. Well... actually, because Ed has been pretty kind to me over the years I actually probably go a bit easier on him in my citicism.
Thinking it over, this 'no spell names'/no 'game rules' deal THO mentions is precisely the sort of thing someone should be blamed for. It could explain much of the sense of 'untetheredness' and unreality that I sense in magic in the Realms fiction.
But, moving on...
Yes, in 1e there was no limited on the damage die of a fireball, Elminster's would have been 25d6 or so if I recall his 1e stats properly. Much more impressive damage-wise then a 5th level mage's 5d6. BUT all fireball spells had the same 20 foot radius whether the caster was a 5th level mage or a 25th level mage. In the story El's fireball is much, much larger, not merely hotter or more damaging.
Yes, there are possible explanations, it isn't a perfect example. There are many others of course, not all or even most from Ed. Generally, ed's magic is so obscure in the fiction you can't tell if he is following the rules or not ('Did Elminster disappear via a teleport spell he cast, or an item?').
I recently raved about EC's Starlight & Shadows books, which I am loving and Elaine shows a consistent level of attention to detail that always warms my heart, but Liriel's magic use seems extremely out of order, her clerical spells as well (which she never seems to have to prepare). On the otherhand, in Tangled Webs we get a virtually text-book example of how an runecaster would learn and cast one of the more powerful runes. Not Vancian but she is clearly following the rune magic rules closely.
My point is not that these are bad novels, nor that FR writers never get magic right just that they don't get it right consistently, and this is an issue not just for one or two writers but for the setting's fiction as a whole.
Erik seemed to miss my point, in that I am fine with 'mysterious' magic. It works wonderfully for Lankhmar or Middle Earth. Some even manage to meled the mysterious and the mundane well, I'm thinking of two very different authors here. Jim Butcher's magic system in the Dresden books follows a clear system, with rules the reader can easily follow and predict yet also manages to be mysterious and surprising in every book so far. And David Eddings established extremely tightly controled rules for sorcery in the world of the Belgariad yet mainatiend a sense of awe in the reading.
I have been reading fantasy fiction for decades and I am extremely comfortable with ambiguity. But I want fiction set in the Realms to resemble the Realms, and to me, the Realms is a game world, the magic rules, the priests praying each more for spells, the mages studying, that's part of the Realms.
Anyway, it was rant, blowing off a bit of steam. Something that has bugged me a bit, and which I think does detract, slightly albeit noticeably, from the overall quality of Realms fiction as a whole.
ALL OF THIS IS ONLY MY OPINION AND MY STATEMENT OF THIS OPINION IS NOT A DEMAND THAT YOU AGREE WITH ME. I usually prefer it when people disagree, it leads to better discussions,at least with the level-headed.
|
"Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that is even remotely true."
Homer Simpson, _The Simspons_ |
|
|
|
The Red Walker
Great Reader
USA
3567 Posts |
Posted - 23 Apr 2011 : 01:56:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by GMWestermeyer
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Lilly, The OP appears to have issues. I would advise you not to worry much about this scroll.
Apparently.
<sigh>
I though using the word 'rant' would clue folks in that I was venting a bit.
Awesome, I applaud you sir....you just managed to call all the posters clueless, while keeping enough distance to say , oh no that was never my intent!quote:
I feel like the lone Star Trek fan at a George Lucas speech... and as an actual, long time FR fan, I have to say, "back the frick off people." My original post was filled with compliments to FR writers, including Ed, and you can disagree with my premise (FR authors rarely follow the established rules for magic) without also attacking me or questioning my fandom. Calm down and read a post before reflexively attacking it. I'm not here to be your pinata, and if you find my posts that disconcerting don't read them.
You can hide poison in a tasty treat, but the whole treat is poison. But it is quite amusing to watch you time after time, pretend too offer a mea culpa , before firing yet another broadside.
I would not catagorize your posts disconcerting....more sad really(i think your axe has been ground enough that all you are left with is your shaft in your hand, wondering how you became dis-armed, when in fact you dis-arm yourself by seemingly making your posts personal. I think I will take your advice and not read any future GMTrollermeyer scrolls by you.
|
A little nonsense now and then, relished by the wisest men - Willy Wonka
"We need men who can dream of things that never were." -
John F. Kennedy, speech in Dublin, Ireland, June 28, 1963
|
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4441 Posts |
Posted - 23 Apr 2011 : 02:21:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by GMWestermeyer
I feel like the lone Star Trek fan at a George Lucas speech... and as an actual, long time FR fan, I have to say, "back the frick off people." My original post was filled with compliments to FR writers, including Ed, and you can disagree with my premise (FR authors rarely follow the established rules for magic) without also attacking me or questioning my fandom. Calm down and read a post before reflexively attacking it. I'm not here to be your pinata, and if you find my posts that disconcerting don't read them.
I don't know enough about the 3e or 4e magic systems to judge how well the FR novels follow them. My understanding is that neither is a Vancian system. I suppose I should have caveated that in my OP, I keep forgetting that I know longer know the 'real' Realms system.
I'm not questioning your fandom or even the reason for your anger at how authors inscribe spells and what-not in their writing. I'm just not seeing the lack of attention to this sort of aspect of the genre. I've also read a lot of non-D&D based fantasy and I've taken the how's and why's of magic with a grain of salt, nor do I expect such writers to completly adhere to even their own 'rules' of magic in their novels.
As for the vancian system, could you describe what sort of details you look for in a novel? For example, a wizard resting to regain the memorization required to learn spells for the next day, or the spells memorized or spell components? These things have all been pretty relevent in Realms novels (that I read anywas) and I've been able to say to myself "Oh, he's casting fireball or invisibility or mass fly!"
Not attacking your statement or rant, just trying to gain an idea of where your coming from is all.
As a side note, the 4E magic system stil has Vancian elements involved such as resting to regain spells, prayers, etc... and even long extended rests to regain the most potent powers so that flavor is alive and well. |
|
|
|
GMWestermeyer
Learned Scribe
USA
215 Posts |
Posted - 23 Apr 2011 : 04:08:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Red Walker
But it is quite amusing to watch you time after time, pretend too offer a mea culpa , before firing yet another broadside.
I'll ignore the rest of your personal attack, but for the record, I offered no mea culpa, pretend or otherwise, because I did nothing wrong. |
"Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that is even remotely true."
Homer Simpson, _The Simspons_ |
|
|
|
Tasker Daze
Seeker
84 Posts |
Posted - 23 Apr 2011 : 04:16:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by GMWestermeyer
quote:
Originally posted by The Red Walker
But it is quite amusing to watch you time after time, pretend too offer a mea culpa , before firing yet another broadside.
I'll ignore the rest of your personal attack, but for the record, I offered no mea culpa, pretend or otherwise, because I did nothing wrong.
Of course you did nothing wrong. Once more everyone gets pissed at you, but you didn't do anything wrong... I guess getting pissed randomly is just something people do, ne?
Here's the clue you keep missing: you come across as arrogant and condesending. Your posts read like attacks. You claim you're misunderstood, but act like a troll. Maybe if you dialed it back somewhat, people would be willing to discuss things with you.
|
. |
|
|
|
GMWestermeyer
Learned Scribe
USA
215 Posts |
Posted - 23 Apr 2011 : 04:23:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
As for the vancian system, could you describe what sort of details you look for in a novel? For example, a wizard resting to regain the memorization required to learn spells for the next day, or the spells memorized or spell components? These things have all been pretty relevent in Realms novels (that I read anywas) and I've been able to say to myself "Oh, he's casting fireball or invisibility or mass fly!"
Fair enough. :)
Limited spells per day would be a good start, and the need to choose the spells at the beginning of the day. This happens in some novels, but not in very many, where the wizard memorizes spells and is limited to that list. A 5th level mage in 1e only has 7 spells per day. A 5th level specialist in 2e, like an illusionist could have 10 I believe but regardless the number is fairly limited.
This should apply to priests as well. They actually seem to get treated worse than mages in this regard, I can't think of a single FR book where a priest had to pray for specific spells each morning. bet someone else will no to prove me wrong, though. :)
More with the verbal, comatic, and material components. Yes, I understand the worry about not providing specifics for fools to copy BUT there could be more descriptive text there. Plus, since material component cost and casting time are important limiting factors in Vancian magic this helps an author indicate the relative power of the spell involved (a spell that might normally be 6th level might be 5th or even 4th ifit requires several thousand GP of spell components and has a day long casting time! Find Familair is a good example there, it should be 3rd or 4th level but components and casting time help reduce it to 1st.
I would like to see more of the spell names. THO tells us that is editorial fiat, and that is a shame, spell naming is one of the small joys of Vancian magic (Khelbun talking to an apprentice would mention the Simbul's Synostdeweamor (sp? :)) rather than just calling it a spell... and looking at the names Ed gives spells in his game products his familairity with the Vancian system is obvious. :)
Anyway, that is a start. To my mind, if all the mages and priests followed thgese rules more closely, the exceptions like Spellfire, or these new sorceror spellcasters, ect would look that much more special and there differences would be highlighted.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Not attacking your statement or rant, just trying to gain an idea of where your coming from is all.
I understand the need for excessive clarity in here, but I hope I would have recognized your post as an attempt to actually discuss magic in Realms novels. :)
|
"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 - 23 Apr 2011 : 04:26:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tasker Daze
Of course you did nothing wrong. Once more everyone gets pissed at you, but you didn't do anything wrong... I guess getting pissed randomly is just something people do, ne?
Here's the clue you keep missing: you come across as arrogant and condesending. Your posts read like attacks. You claim you're misunderstood, but act like a troll. Maybe if you dialed it back somewhat, people would be willing to discuss things with you.
I come off as arrogant and condescending? Am I the one singling out one poster and calling him arrogant, condescending, or a troll?
Do me a favor, dude. STOP READING MY POSTS. There, problem solved. Now you don't have to pay attention to me.
|
"Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that is even remotely true."
Homer Simpson, _The Simspons_ |
|
|
|
Tasker Daze
Seeker
84 Posts |
Posted - 23 Apr 2011 : 04:41:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by GMWestermeyer
quote:
Originally posted by Tasker Daze
Of course you did nothing wrong. Once more everyone gets pissed at you, but you didn't do anything wrong... I guess getting pissed randomly is just something people do, ne?
Here's the clue you keep missing: you come across as arrogant and condesending. Your posts read like attacks. You claim you're misunderstood, but act like a troll. Maybe if you dialed it back somewhat, people would be willing to discuss things with you.
I come off as arrogant and condescending? Am I the one singling out one poster and calling him arrogant, condescending, or a troll?
Do me a favor, dude. STOP READING MY POSTS. There, problem solved. Now you don't have to pay attention to me.
I said that's how you act. By your own standards, that's not the same thing as saying you are a troll.
I'm obviously not the obnly person that feels this way, either. Telling me to stop reading your posts does not change how you present yourself or how others perceive you. Try thinking of that, instead of stikcing with the "I'm never wrong, even when everyone else thinks so" attitude. When people keep telling you the same thing, maybe you should ask yourself why.
And I'm not attacking you. I'm trying to help you. |
. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36804 Posts |
Posted - 23 Apr 2011 : 05:22:30
|
Okay, folks, we've gone more than far enough astray from the original topic.  |
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!  |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4441 Posts |
Posted - 23 Apr 2011 : 10:59:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by GMWestermeyer
Limited spells per day would be a good start, and the need to choose the spells at the beginning of the day. This happens in some novels, but not in very many, where the wizard memorizes spells and is limited to that list. A 5th level mage in 1e only has 7 spells per day. A 5th level specialist in 2e, like an illusionist could have 10 I believe but regardless the number is fairly limited.
This should apply to priests as well. They actually seem to get treated worse than mages in this regard, I can't think of a single FR book where a priest had to pray for specific spells each morning. bet someone else will no to prove me wrong, though. :)
I can agree to an extent, but I feel a lot of this happens "off screen" and it's pretty common knowledge to (dare I say?) most people who have read FR fiction. I could see it being brought up once or maybe twice in a novel but those really aren't elements of the rules that require describing IMO. Think about it, a 10th level wizard can prepare X amount of 5th level spells but those slots could be used up by meta-magic effected lower spell like Fireball or quickened True Strike. And in the game, mentioning that makes sense. In a novel, however, I think many readers would say "Uh...ok? I wonder if this is going to be important info later in the novel."
Point is, I dont feel adhering to these specific rules is really necessary to get the story across, or provide interseting enough of a read to make the editing cut.
quote:
Originally posted by GMWestermeyer
More with the verbal, comatic, and material components. Yes, I understand the worry about not providing specifics for fools to copy BUT there could be more descriptive text there. Plus, since material component cost and casting time are important limiting factors in Vancian magic this helps an author indicate the relative power of the spell involved (a spell that might normally be 6th level might be 5th or even 4th ifit requires several thousand GP of spell components and has a day long casting time! Find Familair is a good example there, it should be 3rd or 4th level but components and casting time help reduce it to 1st.
I would like to see more of the spell names. THO tells us that is editorial fiat, and that is a shame, spell naming is one of the small joys of Vancian magic (Khelbun talking to an apprentice would mention the Simbul's Synostdeweamor (sp? :)) rather than just calling it a spell... and looking at the names Ed gives spells in his game products his familairity with the Vancian system is obvious. :)
Here I agree with you, but the fact that they don't make it into the novel could be page count or number count restraints. I've always been curious about certain spells with little definition or descriptive text and it makes me go "Hmm..where'd that spell come from?" but that's not necessarily taking anything away from the Vancian system. Spell components could be used more often, like in a novel called Descent into the Depths of the Earth (Greyhawk novel) where there is a faerie in there that finds a scroll of Stoneskin. She mentions a few times how much diamond dust she has and says that she can only do the spell so many times before it'e exhausted. It didn't really help the plot along but it made for a little more interesting read.
I understand the need for excessive clarity in here, but I hope I would have recognized your post as an attempt to actually discuss magic in Realms novels. :)
[/quote] |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 23 Apr 2011 : 17:56:26
|
I suspect that fireball scene, like the flaming sphere scene in Spellfire, was partly written precisely to show what Realms magic (wizardly spell-casting through the Weave) is like: broadly Vanceian in that spells are prepared and used up etc., greatly subject to modification by the mage in terms of procedure and effect, including many variant spells not in the Player's Handbook, and approximately but incompletely described by D&D rules.
The consistency of how the Realms works across Ed's source material and narrative writings is remarkable, and I've often cited it against claims that the two mediums necessarily (mis-)represent the world in contradictory ways. Having paid a good bit of attention to the workings of Ed's Realms magic and made pretty voluminous notes at one time or another, as far as I can tell they're fully consistent through his various works, despite not every cast spell citing chapter and verse.
Paul, I agree with you in that I wouldn't mind seeing a few more details of magical process. But having them unmentioned or offstage isn't inconsistency, and neither is variation from Player's Handbook magic, which is a subset of Realms magic.
(You're coming across to me, too, as more abrasive than you did on REALMS-L, and it seems to be working against your communication aims.) |
Edited by - Faraer on 23 Apr 2011 19:39:20 |
|
|
|
GMWestermeyer
Learned Scribe
USA
215 Posts |
Posted - 23 Apr 2011 : 20:30:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
Paul, I agree with you in that I wouldn't mind seeing a few more details of magical process. But having them unmentioned or offstage isn't inconsistency, and neither is variation from Player's Handbook magic, which is a subset of Realms magic.
I see your points, but the Realms never managed to establish the baseline to begin with. If you were completely new to the Realms, and had never played AD&D, you would find the magic system confusing and chaotic - and somehwat unbelievable as a result, in my opinion.
Reality has rules, we know that rubber is an insulator, water freezes when it gets cold, heated water turns to steam, and so forth. We are able to accept the impossible, but we expect the impossible to have rules of its own. Reason, boundries, ect. Especially in any world as permeated by magic as the Realms, a place where magic is part of everyday life.
It's another area where a Realms Cop would have been useful. It's obviously too late to fix it now. <shrug>
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
(You're coming across to me, too, as more abrasive than you did on REALMS-L, and it seems to be working against your communication aims.)
Even in my original post? I admit the blatent personal attacks afterwards pissed me off and have colored what I wrote since.
I miss the old Realms-L, not the Inquisition it became under 3e, but the agora where Realms Fans meet that it was pre-3e. So far, Candlekeep reminds me more of the Inquisition.
|
"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 - 24 Apr 2011 : 22:06:51
|
And a big part of that would be how YOU behave in the discussions.
I originally started sending scribes' queries to Ed and posting his replies here because the Keep was almost entirely a friendly gathering-place for those who loved the Realms. The "edition wars" and the 43 "timejump" for the Realms have changed that, a lot.
Back in the day, many vintage threads were questions for help in finding lore, scribes pointing out new Realmslore or interviews published elsewhere, offerings of new lore or explanations attached to requests for other scribes to poke holes in what might be wrong with them or suggest improvements/augmentation, reviews of new Realms material as it appeared, and discussions of what hadn't yet been revealed in canon lore (especially gods-related material, as it happened).
Fewer threads were like some of those you've recently started: starting out decrying how the Realms doesn't "measure up" to some specific standard (such as Vancian magic). That sort of presentation of debate begins the whole thing on the road to heated emotions, angry debate, and flat-out dispute.
You may, for instance, consider my earliest response to you in this thread a "blatant personal attack." I view it as setting the record straight on something blatantly untrue you said about the Realms, and its creator. Other than revealing I knew your first name, there was nothing "personal" about it.
Yet I'm unsurprised if you take it as personal, because of the way you framed your founding post in this thread.
I'd have reacted very differently if you'd begun with something like: "I thought the Realms, and D&D back then, used the Vancian magic system, yet when I read the books, including those by the creator of the Realms, I see lots of instances where magic seems to work differently, and a lack of authorial explicitly pointing out magical limitations, so the result seems less believable to me and the perils less compelling, with deus ex machina possibilities always in the wings. What do others think? Are there specific examples that could be "fixed" or improved upon in future novels?"
. . . or something like that.
I'll grant that you might not have understood that editors CAN change every word an author submits, when writing a Realms novel, and the writer might not always see those changes before the book is printed. Yet you persist in the notion that the author is wholly responsible for the end result, which suggests that you didn't begin the thread with an open mind to views or opinions different from yours.
Which makes me wonder why you DID begin the thread.
And so on.
There's a good reason for that old saying, "You catch more flies with honey . . ."
Some scribes have been VERY harsh in their crit of specific Realms sourcebooks and novels here at the Keep, yet been polite in doing so.
From being on the scene at the right time, I have personally witnessed how such reviews are carefully received and considered by Realms creators (in my case, Ed Greenwood and the then-head of TSR's Books Department, Brian Thomsen). I have also seen how Mr. Thomsen tossed aside reviews and crit offered by writers who were rude or made their attacks personal, by dismissing those rude critics as jerks whose behaviour made their opinions unworthy of consideration.
That's just human nature.
Sure, we all rant from time to time. Yet only the naive think there will be no consequences, in terms of how others react to them.
I remember you from the Realms-L, too, and had a higher regard for you back then because of the tone of your posts. Which had nothing at all to do with your agreeing with Ed or being a fanboy, because as you'll recall, you disagreed with him about matters in canon Cormyr and other things.
(I haven't sent this thread on to Ed for him to read yet, BTW - - because I thought it would lower his opinion of you.)
I agree with your most recently-expressed point about "not establishing the baseline," in your reply to Faraer, BTW - - and notice how clearly, informally, and yet more politely you expressed it? That made it easier for me to agree.
Awaiting your response with interest,
love,
THO |
Edited by - The Hooded One on 24 Apr 2011 22:26:02 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
A Rant on Magic in the Novels...
Topic Locked
