| Author |
 Topic  |
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11830 Posts |
 Posted - 28 Mar 2018 : 23:34:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
No-one goes around saying they are a spy or assassin.
Speak for yourself Markustay. Most chicks are smart enough to not believe it... but some.... 
Oh, and of course, don't forget to say that you are a triple-naut spy, not some lowly "double-naut"... and chicks dig eyepatches  |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
Edited by - sleyvas on 28 Mar 2018 23:45:30 |
 |
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11830 Posts |
Posted - 28 Mar 2018 : 23:51:05
|
Even though Wooly's example of the assassins is a bad one, he's got a point. If magic itself heavily changes, for instance, people can suddenly cast cantrips all day long, but they can only do a handful... and say animate dead suddenly has a limit on the number of undead you can control... and sixty to six hundred other rules changes related to magic happen.... its a game change and they need to explain it away. Of course, it doesn't have to be as heavy handed as the ToT was, but at the same time, I'll give the people a break... this change from 1st to 2nd edition was one of the first major changes to the game. I remember it happening and thinking to myself that everything was different. In hindsight... meh...
Oh, and to Markustay, yes you're right... in my viewpoint, gods interacting with mortals in Faerun is NOT wrong. FR is very much to me about the mortals of the world interacting with their deities. Also, despite Sleyvas himself being a gunslinger who brought in six shooters from his time being trapped in the Masque of the Red Death setting... I totally agree about having guns in the realms feeling wrong (again, except in the case of my one NPC, which that was a defining characteristic for him). Of course, now Sleyvas is an animated spellbook who floats around talking to an animated sai filled with the intelligence of several conjoined individuals involved in an experiment gone bad.... so things change. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
Edited by - sleyvas on 29 Mar 2018 00:03:22 |
|
|
|
Wrigley
Senior Scribe
Czech Republic
605 Posts |
Posted - 31 Mar 2018 : 21:16:59
|
| Very good point Markus. We can all agree that ToT was not ideal move but each of us have different view on how it should have been done. So even in those halls there would be a long list of ideas and possibly no clear answer. At that time there wasn't that much experience with such moves and even released version didn't stop people from buying FR materials, it brought us Baldur's Gate series (and a lot of new fans) and if you think about it - staple of FR is high magic and fallable gods. What is ToT if not just about that! |
|
|
|
LordofBones
Master of Realmslore
1536 Posts |
Posted - 01 Apr 2018 : 06:58:50
|
| It's funny that the 'fallible gods' thing got thrown out soon after. 'Fallible gods' was only a thing when the ToT happened, and still doesn't account for the metaphysical weight of a god's portfolio; in a world where deific might and strata revolves around mortal worship, Kelemvor, Mystra, Shar, Bane and Cyric have no business being greater deities. |
|
|
|
Baptor
Seeker
USA
93 Posts |
Posted - 01 Apr 2018 : 08:50:10
|
@Markustay
Before I came here today and read your post - I had already decided to "shut up and love the setting," and leave the TOT alone. Now that I've read your post, I'm CERTAIN that's what I need to do. I don't need to neuter the setting by taking out all the things that make it the Realms - other wise I might as well be running "generic setting #12." If I am going to plant my flag into the Realms as my setting of choice - then I need to do so in full acceptance of its quirks and flaws and beautiful complexity. That's what a setting is for.
Your mentioning of World of Warcraft at the end is one of your best points. I play WoW and accept that world with all of its epic strangeness. I don't really question the fact that it's billed as a medieval fantasy world with airplanes, machine guns, tanks, and even goblin motorbikes but yet riding majestic steeds while wearing full plate and carrying a longsword is a legitimate thing as well. It makes no sense, but its part of that world's charm.
Taking the TOT out of the Realms would be like taking all the sarcasm and silliness out of Discworld, for another example.
I could go on and on and explain why I feel this way, but it's 3am here and you have already put it perfectly. I am going to save your post for later inspiration and go to bed. Thank you good sir! |
Jesus said, "I am the Ressurection and the Life. Anyone who believes in Me will live even if he dies, and those who live and believe in Me will never die. Do you believe this?" |
|
|
|
CorellonsDevout
Great Reader
USA
2708 Posts |
Posted - 01 Apr 2018 : 18:57:46
|
I agree with Markus (or at least from my understanding of what he is saying): the gods in the Realms are REAL--their existence is fact, not based merely on faith. Yes, sometimes their involvement is over-the-top, but they enrich the setting, and are part of what makes the Realms what it is. They are among my favorite aspects (I know not everyone feels that way). I am probably one of the few who likes their interactions lol. ToT had its issues, to be sure, but I prefer it to the Spellplague, at least.
As Markustay said, FR is "modelled" after RW mythology, and, in "mythical times", the gods interacted with mortals. Heck, even the Lord in the Bible spoke to people! Taking the gods out of the Realms (or making them so distant they might as well be) takes out a huge flavor of the Realms, imo (again, I realize some will disagree, and would happily have the gods be more distant). But to me, they--among many other things--make the Realms, well, the Realms.
To add my two cents, we all want to read about "ordinary" people we can relate to, but personally, I don't always WANT to relate. I want epic, I want stories of gods and epic battles. That is part of escapism. It's fun to read about individual Waterdhavians and their lives, but it's also fun to read about, if you will, godly issues. And, at the end of the day, it's still about the followers, even when the gods themselves are involved, so it evens out. |
Sweet water and light laughter |
Edited by - CorellonsDevout on 01 Apr 2018 19:10:39 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 01 Apr 2018 : 20:12:30
|
Wow... I struck a multi-dimensional chord here. I should have gone into politics. 
I'm kinda weird myself - I love 'the gods' and godstuff, as you can probably tell by my constantly bringing it up (my homebrew cosmology is tied into everything else I come up with, so I don't get inconsistencies from the roots on up to the newest twigs), buuuuuut... I almost never, ever use 'The Gods' in a game. I prefer not to. But I have come to realize thats that just my preference and not how Ed Greenwood wrote The Realms. So rather then take the gods out of the equation completely, I try to imagine it like the 'ancient mythical setting' its meant to be flavored as, but with the caveat (for me personally) that there is a 'lull' in that activity right now ('right now' being relative to whatever time period I happen to be running a game in). For a post-Spellplague game (or even post-ToT one), its fairly simple to say 'The Gods' are taking a breather from their normal Machiavellian maneuvering because the 'status quo' has been interrupted and most of them need to get a feel for the new 'lay of the land' (in the case of the Spellplague, quite literally).
So I don't have to reinvent the setting I love to make it less god-centric, I just have to realize that my own campaigns are taking place within a 'bubble of quiet'. In the current edition, the events of the Avatar Crisis occurred a 140+ years ago. Its 'ancient history' now. So even though the primordials 'waking up' made it seem the whole world became more god-focused, the truth is, the gods did hardly anything (in Realmspace) during the century between editions. They're just starting to get their mojo back, and you can spin that any way you like. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 01 Apr 2018 20:13:46 |
|
|
|
CorellonsDevout
Great Reader
USA
2708 Posts |
Posted - 01 Apr 2018 : 20:53:31
|
| That makes sense, and everyone is of course free to run the games however they wish, putting as little or as much godly interaction in as they want. I'm just fond of--canonically speaking--their involvement. Yes, it can get overbearing at times, but I think a permanent distancing would ruin the flavor (again, my opinion). Yes, they are currently "quieter" as described by the SCAG, and that is fine. I just (personally) wouldn't want them removed (from a canon standpoint) entirely, or distanced to the point they might as well not be there. But, as you said, even in canon, they are currently (5E) trying to get their mojo back and a "lay of the land". The Second Sundering was, after all, a shake-up for both divine and mortal. |
Sweet water and light laughter |
|
|
|
JohnLynch
Learned Scribe
Australia
243 Posts |
Posted - 01 Apr 2018 : 23:15:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Baptor
@Markustay
Before I came here today and read your post - I had already decided to "shut up and love the setting," and leave the TOT alone....Taking the TOT out of the Realms would be like taking all the sarcasm and silliness out of Discworld, for another example.
Have you read Elminster's Guide to the Forgotten Realms? If not, I heartily recommend you do so. Ed's own group held up their nose when it came time for their game to reach the Time of Troubles and so they just quickly rushed past it and continued on gaming with (at least as far as I understand) little to no acknowledgement of the whole ToT.
If it's good enough for Ed, then it's good enough for me. I personally run my game in the future canon (I believe Ed's group if it still plays is stuck back in the 1350s or maybe the 1360s). Everything that happened still happened. But it happened with a twist.
I don't know if it was in Elminster's Guide or in one of Ed's candlekeep posts (as relayed through THO) but in Ed's game the gods do not walk among men. Instead their priests do. The reason the gods walk among men in the novels is because introducing a different priest for god so-and-so every single time was seen from an editorial standpoint to be confusing to the reader and of no value added. And so the priests were replaced with the deities themselves. From a gaming perspective however it makes a gigantic difference. It's the difference between "I could kill this person or completely disregard them if I so desired" and "Oh great. Another epic level entity is coming in to give me orders. Better do what I'm told or else be smited. All aboard the choo choo train".
You can do what you want. But I take a page out of Ed's book and run my a game a bit closer to how I imagine his home game Realms is/was run. I keep the canon effects in the game, but I replace the gods back with the priests. So instead of Mystra dying, a group of terrorists attacked the very fabric of reality to such a high degree it caused a Spellstorm which caused the Weave itself to shatter and portions of another world to be transplanted with Toril. When the Weave was restored? It wasn't because of Mystra being reborn. She's a god. She never died. It's because the <insert whoever helped bring Mystra back to life> worked with the priests of the Church of Mystra (and I'm sure the Chosen of Mystra were involved as well) to repair the damage that was done to the Weave and restore it. Then using high level magic (derived from the Elven magic that created the original sundering) they were able to return portions of Abeir back to Abeir and bring back portions of Toril.
What's the value add by tweaking the story to such a degree? Such things can now be accessed by mortals to try to carry out whatever plots they might have (and such plots can be opposed by the PCs).
Now you can do whatever you want, but I do run my game in the current era Realms and work to keep it somewhat in line with canon (if I've played it, it's happened and is real. If I've read it, there's a good chance it's canon and real. Everything else? I can't exactly make it canon if I don't know details about it) and see nothing wrong with posting my own tweaks and modifications to the Realms on this forum :) |
DM of the Realms: A blog for my Forgotten Realms adventures. |
Edited by - JohnLynch on 01 Apr 2018 23:18:24 |
|
|
|
CorellonsDevout
Great Reader
USA
2708 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2018 : 02:28:59
|
Ed's novels are among those that come to mind when I think "godly involvement". Mystra literally comes over for tea, not to mention the whole Mystra-Elminster affair (even though she was disguised as a mortal for a portion of the time).
I know Ed meant for the gods to be more "mysterious" (sending messages or some sign, such as a rosy glow from Lathander). This is also stated in the aforementioned Elminster's Guide to Forgotten Realms, but following that on the next page, it says "the gods are known to be very real, so while you're thwarting their mortal servants, it's always best not to personally defame the god. Mocking their holy sayings is about as far as most folk dare go" (pg 134). No matter what form their invovlement takes, whether it is indirect or direct, the gods are an active force in the Realms.
But of coruse, one can choose to ignore events in the Realms in their games if they like, or tweak it to fit their needs. Many people choose to ignore the Spellplague, for example.
|
Sweet water and light laughter |
|
|
|
valarmorgulis
Learned Scribe
112 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2018 : 02:46:17
|
How strangely coincidental that I was musing on this topic today and came to the forums for some advice... and here I find this thread.
First, my $.02 is that game mechanic changes do not necessitate massive story changes, which from what I've seen often do more harm than good. Seems like most here agree with that sentiment. Okay, moving on.
A bit of background: After Zhengyi was defeated in 1359, he found a way to travel back in time and this time he succeeded in bringing Orcus into the Realms. The other demon princes also entered the Realms, each vying to claim it as their own (by drawing the Realms into their layer of the Abyss).
As you know, the ToT happened in 1358, so just one year prior. I'm wondering if I should combine these events, or maybe change the ToT. Here's a few options I'm mulling over:
1. ToT happens at the same time as the demon princes enter the Realms. This would probably be purposeful, with Zhengyi knowing that the ToT would be a great opportunity to summon Orcus while the gods were otherwise indisposed. This brings up a further question: Does the ToT end, or is it prolonged indefinitely with both demon princes and gods walking the Realms?
2. ToT happens beforehand. Gods are still reeling a bit from the ToT so they don't notice until it's too late.
3. ToT doesn't begin due to the theft of the Tablets of Fate . Rather, the appearance of the demon princes cause the gods to react by attempting to stop them, even sending their avatars when their mortal champions fail. One thing leads to another and many of the results from the ToT still occur, just due to somewhat different circumstances.
Furthermore, I am debating whether the ToT should happen as described, or instead have it be that the gods were not cast down, but rather they were forced to invest their powers into Chosen (same idea that was mentioned here). If I go with #1, these Chosen may still be in the Realms. |
Edited by - valarmorgulis on 02 Apr 2018 03:56:50 |
|
|
|
CorellonsDevout
Great Reader
USA
2708 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2018 : 02:58:34
|
That would bring the ToT more in parallel with the Second Sundering (5e), with many Chosen cropping up as the gods try and figure out what is going on.
In a way, that is what Mystra did with Midnight. She may not have been a "chosen" in the way we think of it, but she was given some of Mystra's power. |
Sweet water and light laughter |
|
|
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6666 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2018 : 03:00:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by valarmorgulis
How strangely coincidental that I was musing on this topic today and came to the forums for some advice... and here I find this thread.
First, my $.02 is that game mechanic changes do not necessitate massive story changes, which from what I've seen often do more harm than good. Seems like most here agree with that sentiment. Okay, moving on.
Yes, I was an advocate of this approach for the 2E/3E transition but that didn't stop the howling fan hordes from decrying the new infravision in the context of Narbondel in Menzo, or dwarven wizards in general or well, just about any change in the mechanics that the preceding lore didn't account for. In my book, lore always came first and the rules be damned, but some people prefer a more ... ordered existence.
-- George Krashos |
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
Edited by - George Krashos on 02 Apr 2018 03:00:45 |
|
|
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6666 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2018 : 03:01:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by valarmorgulis
How strangely coincidental that I was musing on this topic today and came to the forums for some advice... and here I find this thread.
First, my $.02 is that game mechanic changes do not necessitate massive story changes, which from what I've seen often do more harm than good. Seems like most here agree with that sentiment. Okay, moving on.
Yes, I was an advocate of this approach for the 2E/3E transition but that didn't stop the howling fan hordes for decrying the new infravision in the context of Narbondel in Menzo, or dwarven wizards in general or well, just about any change in the mechanics that the preceding lore didn;t account for. In my book, lore always came first and the rules be damned, but some people prefer a more ... ordered existence.
-- George Krashos |
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
|
|
|
JohnLynch
Learned Scribe
Australia
243 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2018 : 03:09:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout
I know Ed meant for the gods to be more "mysterious" (sending messages or some sign, such as a rosy glow from Lathander). This is also stated in the aforementioned Elminster's Guide to Forgotten Realms, but following that on the next page, it says "the gods are known to be very real, so while you're thwarting their mortal servants, it's always best not to personally defame the god. Mocking their holy sayings is about as far as most folk dare go" (pg 134). No matter what form their invovlement takes, whether it is indirect or direct, the gods are an active force in the Realms.
If you've read the Wheel of Time you'll know that saying the Dark One's name can bring his attention on you. It doesn't mean he's going to knock on your door when you're sitting down for dinner. But it does mean you'll gain his attention and he'll be able to spread his influence upon your life. I treat the gods (in all games) as a similar thing. If you go around desecrating temples to a god, expect that god to be displeased with you. He won't literally cause lightning to strike you down (unless of cause he's the god of thunder). But if you desecrate a temple of Tempus, you might find in the next battle that your sword shatters (in game terms, if you roll a 1 your sword might shatter regardless of whether or not your game uses critical fumbles).
My way is definitely not 100% canon and some won't like it as a result. But I think I capture the spirit equally well while still keeping the game completely accessible on a PC level instead of on an "epic PCs are the only ones who matter because the gods will show up anytime they want" level. |
DM of the Realms: A blog for my Forgotten Realms adventures. |
Edited by - JohnLynch on 02 Apr 2018 03:11:58 |
|
|
|
CorellonsDevout
Great Reader
USA
2708 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2018 : 03:25:38
|
| I loved Wheel of Time. Interesting comparison. I think the gods of the Realms work a bit differently, but I can see the parallels, and speaking of a deity (good or ill) will definitely get their attention. |
Sweet water and light laughter |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36804 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2018 : 03:30:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
quote:
Originally posted by valarmorgulis
How strangely coincidental that I was musing on this topic today and came to the forums for some advice... and here I find this thread.
First, my $.02 is that game mechanic changes do not necessitate massive story changes, which from what I've seen often do more harm than good. Seems like most here agree with that sentiment. Okay, moving on.
Yes, I was an advocate of this approach for the 2E/3E transition but that didn't stop the howling fan hordes for decrying the new infravision in the context of Narbondel in Menzo, or dwarven wizards in general or well, just about any change in the mechanics that the preceding lore didn;t account for. In my book, lore always came first and the rules be damned, but some people prefer a more ... ordered existence.
-- George Krashos
A massive story change wasn't necessary, though; changes could have been explained without that. I came up with such a spin when someone wanted to do spellscars without the Spellplague:
quote:
So I was thinking on this a bit further... And I'll prolly use this to re-spin the return of Shade in my own Realms, since -- as I've said in the past -- I thought WotC would use Shade's return to explain the sudden advent of sorcerers and the like. I think it can also be used as a background for the appearance of spellscars.
So, when Karsus was planning his Ultimate Folly spell, he needed to gather and store a hell of a lot of magical energy. So he built this huge ring...
The ring is hundreds of miles in diameter, and it's defined by arrangements of standing stones. From the ground, these stones appear to be randomly scattered about, perhaps even natural formations... But when viewed from above by someone with a very in-depth knowledge of spellcraft, it's obvious that each of these stone formations actually is a rune of some sort.
See, each of these sets of stones is set somewhere where magic is quite strong -- at convergences of ley lines, if you will. The shape of the runes allows the stones to draw on and store the magic of these places, and their placement at precise places in the circle increases and focuses that stored power.
And actually, it doesn't have to be a ring, it could be that all of these stone emplacements would, if marked on a map and connected with lines, form some other mystical pattern, or a gigantic glyph. Either way, the individual stone formations are far enough apart that no one has ever realized there was a connection between them.
So anyway, Karsus used this to up his own power when he cast his Ultimate Folly spell. And it was due in no small part to that magic ring that he had enough power to temporarily seize divinity...
Now it's 16 centuries later, and Shade agents, sent thru in small numbers, have managed to realign all of these stones, and use the power to create a big enough portal to bring Shade back into the light. Of course, with 16 centuries of accumulating magic and the stones having been misaligned for much of that time, the magic got out of hand -- it was the arcane equivalent of dropping a bunch of nukes. There was way too much power, and though the Shades achieved their goal, the power quickly spun out of control.
The entire Weave was distorted by the unleashing of that much magic. Tsunami-like waves raced throughout the Weave, temporarily stunning Mystra and impacting the magic of the Realms like nothing since Netheril's Fall. Races never before able to touch the Weave found its wonders opening before them, and others discovered an innate connection to the Weave wholly different from that of wizards. Storms of wild magic flared and died in an instant, and many found themselves marked by the unchecked power of the distorted and rippling Weave.
It took mere moments for Mystra to reassert her control of the Weave, but in those few breaths, magic in the Realms was irrevocably changed.
Sorry, the writer in me slipped the leash for a minute, there....
But anyway, with this idea (or something similar), you could readily explain the sudden appearance of sorcerers, have an explanation for why races who previously didn't use much (or any) magic suddenly have that capability, and get your spellscars or other limited (as in, not continent-swapping or planes-destroying) effects of the canon Sellplague.
So that provides a change to the setting that can be used to explain a lot of stuff -- but it doesn't invalidate prior lore or blow up the setting. You add sorcerers, new types of magic, previously non-magical races using magic... And it doesn't break anything, especially prior continuity.
Granted, this doesn't explain all the changes to the setting with 3E, but a lot of those had nothing to do with the rules changing, anyway -- like the entirely new planar structure or Silverymoon suddenly getting a mythal it didn't have before. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 02 Apr 2018 03:42:30 |
|
|
|
valarmorgulis
Learned Scribe
112 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2018 : 03:47:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout
That would bring the ToT more in parallel with the Second Sundering (5e), with many Chosen cropping up as the gods try and figure out what is going on.
In a way, that is what Mystra did with Midnight. She may not have been a "chosen" in the way we think of it, but she was given some of Mystra's power.
Yes, precisely.
quote:
Originally posted by JohnLynch
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout
I know Ed meant for the gods to be more "mysterious" (sending messages or some sign, such as a rosy glow from Lathander). This is also stated in the aforementioned Elminster's Guide to Forgotten Realms, but following that on the next page, it says "the gods are known to be very real, so while you're thwarting their mortal servants, it's always best not to personally defame the god. Mocking their holy sayings is about as far as most folk dare go" (pg 134). No matter what form their invovlement takes, whether it is indirect or direct, the gods are an active force in the Realms.
If you've read the Wheel of Time you'll know that saying the Dark One's name can bring his attention on you. It doesn't mean he's going to knock on your door when you're sitting down for dinner. But it does mean you'll gain his attention and he'll be able to spread his influence upon your life. I treat the gods (in all games) as a similar thing. If you go around desecrating temples to a god, expect that god to be displeased with you. He won't literally cause lightning to strike you down (unless of cause he's the god of thunder). But if you desecrate a temple of Tempus, you might find in the next battle that your sword shatters (in game terms, if you roll a 1 your sword might shatter regardless of whether or not your game uses critical fumbles).
My way is definitely not 100% canon and some won't like it as a result. But I think I capture the spirit equally well while still keeping the game completely accessible on a PC level instead of on an "epic PCs are the only ones who matter because the gods will show up anytime they want" level.
I like this approach. I'm thinking of having a blanket rule that, barring extremely extraordinary circumstances (e.g. ToT), the gods are unable to physically manifest in the Realms. Not due to a ruling by Ao, but rather that is just the way the universe works.
I am ditching Ao in my campaign btw. His very existence makes it difficult to justify any world-destroying events from ever occurring. |
Edited by - valarmorgulis on 02 Apr 2018 03:49:23 |
|
|
|
CorellonsDevout
Great Reader
USA
2708 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2018 : 04:32:04
|
| @valarmorgulis: so would you have them manifest? More indirectly, like via visions, signs, etc? I am just curious. |
Sweet water and light laughter |
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2018 : 06:05:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
quote:
Originally posted by valarmorgulis
How strangely coincidental that I was musing on this topic today and came to the forums for some advice... and here I find this thread.
First, my $.02 is that game mechanic changes do not necessitate massive story changes, which from what I've seen often do more harm than good. Seems like most here agree with that sentiment. Okay, moving on.
Yes, I was an advocate of this approach for the 2E/3E transition but that didn't stop the howling fan hordes for decrying the new infravision in the context of Narbondel in Menzo, or dwarven wizards in general or well, just about any change in the mechanics that the preceding lore didn;t account for. In my book, lore always came first and the rules be damned, but some people prefer a more ... ordered existence.
-- George Krashos
I would not call that ordered.... more like chaos or control freakish |
why is being a wizard like being a drow? both are likely to find a dagger in the back from a rival or one looking to further his own goals, fame and power
My FR fan fiction
Magister's GAmbit
http://steelfiredragon.deviantart.com/gallery/33539234 |
Edited by - sfdragon on 02 Apr 2018 06:06:29 |
|
|
|
valarmorgulis
Learned Scribe
112 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2018 : 06:10:04
|
| Generally, yes. Or proxies when needed. The old 2e book faiths and avatars gives information on non-avatar manifestations. |
|
|
|
CorellonsDevout
Great Reader
USA
2708 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2018 : 07:04:11
|
| I know about the non-avatar manisfestions from F&A, but as there are several ways a deity can interact, I thought I would ask. |
Sweet water and light laughter |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36804 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2018 : 10:04:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by sfdragon
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
quote:
Originally posted by valarmorgulis
How strangely coincidental that I was musing on this topic today and came to the forums for some advice... and here I find this thread.
First, my $.02 is that game mechanic changes do not necessitate massive story changes, which from what I've seen often do more harm than good. Seems like most here agree with that sentiment. Okay, moving on.
Yes, I was an advocate of this approach for the 2E/3E transition but that didn't stop the howling fan hordes for decrying the new infravision in the context of Narbondel in Menzo, or dwarven wizards in general or well, just about any change in the mechanics that the preceding lore didn;t account for. In my book, lore always came first and the rules be damned, but some people prefer a more ... ordered existence.
-- George Krashos
I would not call that ordered.... more like chaos or control freakish
Not at all. I, for one, want continuity and a setting that supports the rules I'm playing. If the rules say I can't play a dwarven wizard, I expect the setting to reflect that. When that suddenly changes, I want to know why, in-setting, a previously unavailable option is now a thing.
The Forgotten Realms was published as a game setting by a game company. Game settings have to support the current ruleset. It's that simple.
Yes, I understand that's not why the Realms were created... But the Realms we've all been reading about is the game setting. |
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! |
|
|
|
JohnLynch
Learned Scribe
Australia
243 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2018 : 10:24:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I, for one, want continuity and a setting that supports the rules I'm playing.
I have no intent of ever playing Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition, nor stock standard Dungeons & Dragons 3.5e. Obviously I don't value "setting reflect rules" as much as you clearly do.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
If the rules say I can't play a dwarven wizard, I expect the setting to reflect that. When that suddenly changes, I want to know why, in-setting, a previously unavailable option is now a thing.
I also don't need this and have no value in this. "Dwarves have simply not been magically inclined" is good enough for me. As is "Dwarves in the Forgotten Realms can't be wizards regardless of what the ruleset says" is also completely acceptable.
I understand neither of those are acceptable to you Wooly. I'm just demonstrating what you expect isn't necessarily what others expect or even want. |
DM of the Realms: A blog for my Forgotten Realms adventures. |
|
|
|
JohnLynch
Learned Scribe
Australia
243 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2018 : 10:31:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by valarmorgulis
I am ditching Ao in my campaign btw.
I go with "Ao has never granted clerical spells to his followers [this is canon]. There is one school of thought that there is no actual deity that corresponds with Ao This school of thought argues that Ao was simply invented by a philosopher that was struggling to come to grips with the cosmology of the planes and felt there needed to be an entity that created the other gods. If this philosopher ever explained how Ao came to exist and why Ao didn't need another overdeity to have created him, these revelations have long been lost to time."
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout
@valarmorgulis: so would you have them manifest? More indirectly, like via visions, signs, etc? I am just curious.
I'm not valarmorgulis, but I would manifest them through priests. A priest who had a vision that he needed to go to a particular spot and reveal to some travelers <insert cryptic message here>. Or a priest sees a group also sees an omen (e.g. a flock of birds flying east over their shoulders from his perspective) which gives him an insight into either something the group has done or something the group is about to do and he approaches them armed with this knowledge and with a warning or insight appropriate for someone trained in the clerical teachings of his deity.
The priest would of course approach them all John Edwards style and talk in very vague vaguearities until the group confirms some basic facts (after all, sometimes a flock of birds flying east is just a flock of birds flying east. The older the priest the more confident he'll be in his interpretation of signs from his deity) before imparting his warning or insight. Whatever the warning or insight is, it will be exactly the sort of thing you'd expect a priest of that god to say. |
DM of the Realms: A blog for my Forgotten Realms adventures. |
Edited by - JohnLynch on 02 Apr 2018 10:36:55 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36804 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2018 : 15:34:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnLynch
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I, for one, want continuity and a setting that supports the rules I'm playing.
I have no intent of ever playing Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition, nor stock standard Dungeons & Dragons 3.5e. Obviously I don't value "setting reflect rules" as much as you clearly do.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
If the rules say I can't play a dwarven wizard, I expect the setting to reflect that. When that suddenly changes, I want to know why, in-setting, a previously unavailable option is now a thing.
I also don't need this and have no value in this. "Dwarves have simply not been magically inclined" is good enough for me. As is "Dwarves in the Forgotten Realms can't be wizards regardless of what the ruleset says" is also completely acceptable.
I understand neither of those are acceptable to you Wooly. I'm just demonstrating what you expect isn't necessarily what others expect or even want.
So you're saying that you don't have an issue with the following statements BOTH being valid?
"Dwarves can't be wizards and in fact have problems using magical items." and
"Dwarves can be wizards, sorcerers, and can use magic just like everyone else, and it's always been that way, but no one knew about it." |
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! |
|
|
|
LordofBones
Master of Realmslore
1536 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2018 : 15:48:30
|
A lot of the demihuman class restrictions never made any sense. Dwarves can't be wizards because...reasons, I guess, despite dwarves in myth forging magical items, like Mjolnir and Draupnir. Even the ur-dwarves of fantasy, Tolkien's creations, didn't shy from the crafting of magical equipment; Telchar was the dwarf that forged Narsil and the Dragon-helm of Dor-lomin.
3e getting rid of absurd class restrictions was a step in the right direction. Cultural inclination is not the same as racial ineptitude. |
|
|
|
valarmorgulis
Learned Scribe
112 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2018 : 16:57:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout
I know about the non-avatar manisfestions from F&A, but as there are several ways a deity can interact, I thought I would ask.
I'd have them interact in the most direct way (direct to the god, not necessarily to the mortal), which is by doing something directly related to their portfolio. Your example of a blade breaking is apt.
|
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36804 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2018 : 17:09:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by LordofBones
A lot of the demihuman class restrictions never made any sense. Dwarves can't be wizards because...reasons, I guess, despite dwarves in myth forging magical items, like Mjolnir and Draupnir. Even the ur-dwarves of fantasy, Tolkien's creations, didn't shy from the crafting of magical equipment; Telchar was the dwarf that forged Narsil and the Dragon-helm of Dor-lomin.
3e getting rid of absurd class restrictions was a step in the right direction. Cultural inclination is not the same as racial ineptitude.
I agree that the class restrictions didn't make sense... But cultural inclination does not explain the dwarven inability to use magical items. In 2E, dwarves were so non-magical that unless an item was made for dwarves or for the specific wielder's class, then there was a 20% chance of failure, every round. |
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! |
|
|
|
valarmorgulis
Learned Scribe
112 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2018 : 17:17:06
|
| I just don't see why some the mechanics change needs to be justified through story events, unless it is something core to the setting or stories. Dwarves couldn't use magic items made for non-dwarves, now they can. Were there a bunch of books where dwarves were trying and failing to use magic items? Now, if suddenly there was no magic and everyone used guns -- that would probably require a story event. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Re-imagining the Avatar Crisis/Time of Troubles
