| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36803 Posts |
 Posted - 06 Mar 2005 : 05:43:21
|
And the rules changes do sometimes affect the characters -- look at sorcerers and wizards. In 2E, if you cast arcane spells, you had to pick them out before hand and then memorize them. Now you can do that or just pick and chose as you cast. So, some characters that we know in the past had to prepare magic one way are now doing it another way, and now any new characters have a way with magic that 2E characters didn't have. Sure, it's a case of the fiction reflecting the rules, but now the rules have changed -- why does the fiction not go into why something that was universal now no longer is?
I'm not big on applying the rules to the fiction... But I do want consistency, and if there is inconsistency, I want it explained. I can ignore things like your Laeral example, but when something basic like methods of spellcasting is changed, it should be explained... Ditto for the case Rinonalyrna Fathomlin pointed out -- someone felt that Silverymoon needed more evil NPCs. Rather than do the right thing and create a new NPC, an existing one was changed with no explanation. That's not being true to the lore...
You also mention changing the landscape, which is something they did do with 3E, again with only a lame explanation...
Let's face it -- despite the love many of us have for the pure flavor and lore present in the Realms, the fact remains that it is a game setting. Of course we're going to look at it with a rules-tinted lens... I'll be the first to say I general ignore things like stat blocks, and I do feel that the rules should reflect the lore and not vice versa. But when a rules change invalidates a previous bit of lore, I don't think it's unreasonable to want to know why. |
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!  |
 |
|
|
Brian R. James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
1098 Posts |
Posted - 06 Mar 2005 : 06:19:08
|
Ummm George, have you looked at the map of Faerūn lately? The changed made during the transition to 2nd-Edition were a drop in the bucket compared to the destruction left behind in the wake of 3rd-Edition. And those few changes that were made during the Time of Troubles were at least given an in-setting explanation.
The changes to the geography of Faerūn and the complete abandonment of the Great Wheel are not "wholesale changes to a game setting"? How about the great purging of the monster pantheons? Anyone care to explain to the drow why they are now colorblind?
Did Ptah lead the manifestation of the Mulhorandi pantheon through wildspace or the Astral as 3rd-Edition revisionist history suggests? Does Ptah even exist in 3rd-Edition?
All these changes have had great impact on the Realms, its people and its history. |
Brian R. James - Freelance Game Designer
Follow me on Twitter @brianrjames |
|
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2449 Posts |
Posted - 06 Mar 2005 : 19:15:01
|
My personal favorite is the great "disappearing, reappearing assassin." First they exist, and there are lots of them, and they have secret guilds and training halls. Then comes the ToT, and a pair of uncaring gods kill them all for their own ends. OK so far. But with them goes most of the knowledge of "true assassinhood" if you will, the secrets and techniques that had been honed since the fall of Netheril. Thus an "assassin" is just someone who kills for money, not someone who has had in-depth training in this special art of killing, because everyone who could have provided such training (including their god) is dead.
And then, a decade goes by, and viola, all the assassins are back. How? Uhh, I dunno. There's no one to train them, or to teach them spells, or anything else. Their god is still dead (Baldur's Gate games notwithstanding). And yet, suddenly there are hordes of assassins again. And absolutely no reason behind it, other than the fact 3e wandered along.
Argh! |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
|
|
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6666 Posts |
Posted - 07 Mar 2005 : 01:20:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Realmslore
Ummm George, have you looked at the map of Faerūn lately? The changed made during the transition to 2nd-Edition were a drop in the bucket compared to the destruction left behind in the wake of 3rd-Edition. And those few changes that were made during the Time of Troubles were at least given an in-setting explanation.
Yep, they trimmed the map, chopped out wilderness territory (now someone is going to pipe up and tell me that Erlkazar isn't wilderness but we won't go into that now ...) and made it fit their two-page spread maps in FRCS and other places. And the effect on the FR continuum? Negligible I would say, except for that 0.1 % of DMs who were running a campaign in the area that got chopped. Sure your 2E maps now look different from your 3E maps just like many 1E maps look different to the 2E maps - but I didn't hear anyone complaining back then ...) but if it in any way affects your gaming in the Realms, then fix it! If I had $1 for every retro-fit I've had to do in the Realms to make things quasi-consistent I would have bought the setting from WotC by now.
I know, I know - why should we have to 'fix it'. A valid and worthy point. But not entirely constructive. In fact, not constructive at all. If the FR fans of this world spent as much energy writing up something new and wonderful about the Realms as they do b*&%#ing about Silverymoon's mythal, Larloch's "proper" stats, the changes to the map, the return (or departure) of Bane, the fact that drow now see different in the Realms, the changes to a planar cosmology that shouldn't even affect a campaign set IN the Realms, the fact that dwarves can now cast arcane magic - I could go on and on. We have to deal with the changes and react positively: they're done now. Complaining doesn't help.
quote:
The changes to the geography of Faerūn and the complete abandonment of the Great Wheel are not "wholesale changes to a game setting"? How about the great purging of the monster pantheons? Anyone care to explain to the drow why they are now colorblind?
With all due respect Brian, aside from the geography of Faerun part - which I think isn't as catastrophic as people make it out to be - the problems you mention above are game-related first, Realms-related second. Why does it matter in the Realms that drow are now colorblind? How does the purging of the monster pantheons affect my PC party travelling through Amphail? Does Thorbard the Warrior care that the planes are now tree-shaped instead of wheel-shaped? I don't think so - and neither do many FR DMs. Those with a planar bent and a campaign that was running before the changes might care, but I wouldn't think there are too many of those people out there - if any.
quote:
Did Ptah lead the manifestation of the Mulhorandi pantheon through wildspace or the Astral as 3rd-Edition revisionist history suggests? Does Ptah even exist in 3rd-Edition?
Well Brian, I can't recall you complaining when he started 'existing' in 2E after not 'existing' in the 1E Realms. And again, for the gamers and likely more than a few DMs, the abovementioned points are totally irrelevant to their gaming experience in the Realms.
Of course, people such as you and I who collect, collate and bring together Realms material get lots of headaches, but in this, I think WE are in the minority.
quote:
All these changes have had great impact on the Realms, its people and its history.
All of these changes have had NO impact on the Realms, its people and its history. Gaming stats have not changed who the Simbul is. The fact that she now learns spells differently is a game mechanic (and one that happens off-stage for Ao's sake!) and hasn't got anything to do with the Simbul as a person or construct of the imagination.
3E material that has changed the Forgotten Realms quite simply has to be explained and retro-fitted like it always has been. The shared world part of being involved in the Realms means that changes are inevitable as your or my particular creative vision won't always match up with a designer or writer's vision. People as respected as Steven Schend copped a huge amount of flak for the changes they wrought in "Cloak & Dagger". The evil NPC change re Xara Tantlor in Silverymoon is a classic example. The mistake wasn't that she was suddenly evil, the mistake was that the change wasn't given an in-Realms explanation (i.e she donned a helm of opposite alignment or somesuch).
Changes that affect people, places and history of the Realms (and again with respect, monster pantheons, affairs of gods, wheels and trees, do not count unless they affect Faerun directly in terms of mortal-discernable events) should be explained in the FR products. Changes to game mechanics that change stat-related aspects of people and places do not need an explanation because that's the way it is if you play 3E D&D. If you stick to 1E then your Simbul is different again, as she is when you play 2E. I would argue that the damage done to the Realms by the ToT being a game-related change that was attempted as a Realms-related change, was such that it dissuaded WotC from undertaking such a course of action in the transition from 2E to 3E.
What I'm basically saying in a very convoluted and annoyingly circular way (for which I apologise) is that changes in game mechanics are not a good reason to change information in the Realms that has nothing to do with the game rules. I much prefer the "they were always like that" rationale to the "and a group of renegade High Mages have cast a titanic ritual of myriad that has changed practically everything we knew about the Realms, changed the landscapes, let dwarves cast spells, changed the way drow see, re-shaped the cosmology and ...  ... made the Simbul change the way she learns her spells ..."
Such wholesale changes to the game, if they'd attempted to explain them in-Realms, would have caused more harm than good, IMHO.
-- George Krashos
|
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36803 Posts |
Posted - 07 Mar 2005 : 02:41:37
|
Three points:
1) We do have something we could use to explain dwarven spellcasters: the Thunder Blessing.
2) Steven Schend's changes: The changes Steven wrought were in-game changes, advancement of the overall plot. It wasn't a "hey, I don't like this, so I'm changing it" thing or changes to the characters.
3) Xara Tantlor: Agreed, this is a huge mistake, especially Rich Baker's response of why she was changed: "Silverymoon needed more evil NPCs, so I changed her." Even better than an in-game explanation would have been him taking the time to create a new NPC, but that was apparently too much effort for him.
Yeah, it's not constructive for us to just sit here and complain about changes. But the people making the changes should have more respect for the setting and for us than to make arbitrary and unexplained changes.
As I used to tell my co-workers: Don't give me something to complain about, and I won't complain. |
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! |
|
|
|
Haman
Seeker
USA
60 Posts |
Posted - 07 Mar 2005 : 20:04:57
|
Hey all,
Okay, I could be gettin over my head in all of this, but I can't resist threads of this nature. It's not that "Most Dangerous Man in Faerun" isn't interesting, just not my cup of tea, I'm more of the lore gathering/analyzing data sorta guy. And with that, on to my 'opinion' (and believe me, I use that word as loose as possible, I mean I have most every book put out by FR, just haven't read them in much detail as I've seen from some of you guys, bravo for that by the way!).
quote:
The Realms didn't change at all from 1E through to 2E through to 3E.
Sure they did, and they were purposly changed to conform to the new editions, not just the system, but the world, NPC's, cultures, you name it. I am loathe to do it, but I gotta pull out the "Because Ed Greenwood told me so" card, once when we were chatting up in Ontario. And when the creator for the Realms tells you that it has changed, I tend to just nod my head and say "okay".
From 1st to 2nd, we saw the Time of Troubles that was intentionally devised to herald in 2nd edition. Psionics was officially out, All of the assassins were gone, Bardic magic was completely altered (which led to the final demise of I think two of the past infamous Barding colleges), so that it was basically just arcane magic. The Chosen truly came into being, we saw new gods with expanded portfolios and the new process by which the Gods recieved their power and status. And I could go on and on.... Can you really say that these changes did not change the world, it's people, it's culture, it's very existence?
2nd edition to 3rd edition saw the "Threat from the Sea" (Which I was to understand from Greenwood was the true big change, and not the re-entry of Shade), and once again major things rocked the world. The new format that Wizards implemented (making things more "crunchy", and less detailed), completely altered the world as I saw it. No more was there pages and pages of material devoted to weather conditions in the North, and such, but now you got to see Larloch's stats (I still groan at this), the number bonuses to a tiefling instead of what a tiefling really is (it's culture, way of life, etc..), and more time spent on world destruction than world building (Cormyr & Tilverton ravaged, but what happened to the brilliant concept of a new second home for the elves that Cunningham devised?) Gods again start springing up, bards get their magic back, assassins get their cool prestige class, the map is changed, etc....etc... All of these are things that will change the world in staggering ways, the Gods alone swapping in and out would do that!
Please do not think I am slamming WotC for their current view and plan for the Realms, anything that sells more books and keeps it alive I love, and I'll continue buying said books and encourage others to do so. But saying that there haven't been changes to the world between editions is not correct at all in my humble (and probably wrong) opinion.
Thanks for your time, and great thread! |
Some people say we gamers have no lives....I think we have too many. |
|
|
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6666 Posts |
Posted - 08 Mar 2005 : 00:24:06
|
You're correct that there have been changes to the Realms in the transition from 2E to 3E, but what we are discussing here is using events in the Realms to describe changes in the D&D game rules - like the ToT did for the 1E to 2E changes.
The examples you cite (Threat from the Sea and Return of the Archwizards stuff) were driven by the FR fiction crew, not the change from 2E to 3E. Threat from the Sea wasn't much of a Realms-changing event anyway (although it was pretty big in Seros) and occurred before the advent of 3E.
The return of Shade is a one I'm not sure on: as in, it's a bit of a chicken and the egg conundrum. Did the change to the rules in 3E bring about the Shadow Weave, Shade, Netherese-refugees plot thread, or did the edition change give designers a bit of free rein to make changes to the Realms because they now had a vehicle (the FRCS) to do so? The answer might be "yes" and "yes", but we'll probably never know.
And as noted before, the only thing that changed regarding NPCs from edition to edition were their game stats. To me that's like giving your house a new coat of paint in a different colour. Sure it looks different, but it's still the same house. Oh, and I can't recall if any cultures of the Realms changed from edition to edition - although Eric's sterling efforts gave a heck of a lot more info and meat regarding the humans of Faerun in 3E. But again, that had nothing to do with rule changes.
As for the "crunch" v. "fluff" debate, I think the wheel is coming fll circle now.
-- George Krashos
|
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 08 Mar 2005 : 11:48:22
|
Maybe half circle.
Maybe the explanation for Xara Tantlor is that she woke up on the wrong side of the bed in the morning.
I've already argued that the 3E changes to the Realms aren't significant in a discussion with Jim Lowder, and have decided that I don't have to do it again for at least a year. Some of the same as what George has said.
As a drill, I will now use the word """""""""*****""""""""", but only with a lot of protection. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
More "Canon"-Fodder
