T O P I C R E V I E W |
Imbaownage |
Posted - 15 Nov 2017 : 05:35:08 I feel like I have read every single d&d novel out there but the only books I can think of with a full or close to a full party of adventures I can think of is dragonlance chronicles and in part the drizzt books. Am I missing something?
When we play d&d it's almost always with a complete party supporting each other I would love to see more of that in the novels |
11 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
Artemas Entreri |
Posted - 21 Nov 2017 : 11:47:23 quote: Originally posted by Seravin
How would you define a "party"?
It's not a party until you throw in some Elminster's Choice.
http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Elminster%27s_Choice |
Seravin |
Posted - 21 Nov 2017 : 02:55:09 How would you define a "party"? 4 or more adventurers?
Azure Bonds is a good one in that case as it is about Alias, Dragonbait, Akabar and Olive. The Swords of Series is about the Knights of Myth Drannor's early days (wish it was as good as that sounds!). Avatar trilogy starts with 4 people but after book 1 the characters get separated so much it's not really a party anymore.
The 2nd and 3rd Pools books have full parties going with druids, fighters, magic users, rangers..etc. Surprisingly not a lot of the Harper series is about a party of adventurers... |
Madpig |
Posted - 17 Nov 2017 : 12:40:14 quote: Originally posted by Ayrik
Raistlin and Caramon, Tanis, Tasslehoff, Flint, Sturm, Riverwind and Goldmoon, Kitiara, Laurana, Kitiara, Fizban/Paladine, etc.
They weren't always all "partied together" or pursuing the same story arc all the time - they tended to split off into sideplots and eventually into numerous other stories. But in the first novels it seemed (to me) like too many characters to follow on an adventure, a "typical" party of 4-6 characters would've offered more simplicity and more focus on depth of character than on variety of characters. Although Dragonlance was immensely popular, of course, I think it would've likely become the "flagship" D&D setting if the legendary Old Grey Box hadn't introduced the Realms.
A round dozen classed PCs/NPCs travelling around in a big pack - and constantly splitting off into smaller groups - and containing a curious little kender - would be a serious chore for any DM to handle, lol.
I meant that PC thing from D&D point of view. I meant actual number of players was quite low. I know full well the amount of characters in the book. But I can follow what are you meaning. I think there was way too many fill in characters. |
Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 16 Nov 2017 : 17:46:47 quote: Originally posted by Ayrik
Raistlin and Caramon, Tanis, Tasslehoff, Flint, Sturm, Riverwind and Goldmoon, Kitiara, Laurana, Kitiara, Fizban/Paladine, etc.
They weren't always all "partied together" or pursuing the same story arc all the time - they tended to split off into sideplots and eventually into numerous other stories. But in the first novels it seemed (to me) like too many characters to follow on an adventure, a "typical" party of 4-6 characters would've offered more simplicity and more focus on depth of character than on variety of characters. Although Dragonlance was immensely popular, of course, I think it would've likely become the "flagship" D&D setting if the legendary Old Grey Box hadn't introduced the Realms.
A round dozen classed PCs/NPCs travelling around in a big pack - and constantly splitting off into smaller groups - and containing a curious little kender - would be a serious chore for any DM to handle, lol.
Well, keep in mind the OGB came about because TSR was looking for a new setting... To me, Krynn isn't as much a setting as it is the background for three big, interconnecting stories. One of the strengths of the Realms has already been that it's not about the ONE BIG STORY, the way Krynn was -- the Realms was made for many, many stories, not just one. |
Ayrik |
Posted - 16 Nov 2017 : 10:19:35 Raistlin and Caramon, Tanis, Tasslehoff, Flint, Sturm, Riverwind and Goldmoon, Kitiara, Laurana, Kitiara, Fizban/Paladine, etc.
They weren't always all "partied together" or pursuing the same story arc all the time - they tended to split off into sideplots and eventually into numerous other stories. But in the first novels it seemed (to me) like too many characters to follow on an adventure, a "typical" party of 4-6 characters would've offered more simplicity and more focus on depth of character than on variety of characters. Although Dragonlance was immensely popular, of course, I think it would've likely become the "flagship" D&D setting if the legendary Old Grey Box hadn't introduced the Realms.
A round dozen classed PCs/NPCs travelling around in a big pack - and constantly splitting off into smaller groups - and containing a curious little kender - would be a serious chore for any DM to handle, lol. |
Madpig |
Posted - 16 Nov 2017 : 07:29:55 quote: Originally posted by Ayrik
The Dragonlance books had a few too many people in the party. I've not met many DMs who could manage and entertain a dozen PCs at once, lol.
The AD&D-era FR novels were always party-centric, usually 3-5 characters receiving "equal" attention and importance. A party lacking some sort of warrior, wizard, priest, or thief would rarely venture far without first acquiring characters to fill these roles, although the smallest parties could cover the gaps with multiclassed members instead. But somewhere along the way the style changed to one main hero along with some sidekick support cast, mirrored by one main villain along with treacherous/disposable minions, sometimes mirrored again by other actors/companions working through other plot arenas. I think it's a stylistic legacy from Drizzt.
Just saying, but if my memory servers me correctly, not all the DL characters were actually PCs. I think it was Raistlin, Tanis, Tasslehoff and 1 or 2 others. |
George Krashos |
Posted - 16 Nov 2017 : 04:26:48 Spellfire.
Rage of Dragons trilogy.
Swords of Eveningstar trilogy.
-- George Krashos |
Imbaownage |
Posted - 15 Nov 2017 : 18:31:24 Ahh yes the avatar series forgot about those I liked them alot |
Ayrik |
Posted - 15 Nov 2017 : 17:27:11 Avatar Series was 1E/2E AD&D.
But in 3E-onwards D&D novels - one epic hero with entourage, one nasty bad guy with reinforcements, sometimes other good/bad parties acting out secondary plots. |
Artemas Entreri |
Posted - 15 Nov 2017 : 16:43:58 Avatar Series- Fighter, Wizard, Thief, Cleric |
Ayrik |
Posted - 15 Nov 2017 : 07:31:34 The Dragonlance books had a few too many people in the party. I've not met many DMs who could manage and entertain a dozen PCs at once, lol.
The AD&D-era FR novels were always party-centric, usually 3-5 characters receiving "equal" attention and importance. A party lacking some sort of warrior, wizard, priest, or thief would rarely venture far without first acquiring characters to fill these roles, although the smallest parties could cover the gaps with multiclassed members instead. But somewhere along the way the style changed to one main hero along with some sidekick support cast, mirrored by one main villain along with treacherous/disposable minions, sometimes mirrored again by other actors/companions working through other plot arenas. I think it's a stylistic legacy from Drizzt. |
|
|