| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| The Grumpy Celt |
Posted - 21 Sep 2007 : 20:21:27
The Forgotten Realms are heading for a proverbial rebooting in the mechanical form of 4E and the story form of Mystra dying and so forth and so on.
Some like the idea while others are skeptical on the issue.
Those who are enthusiastic on the subject say the setting needs this, most often saying something to the effect of a need to trim the fat or to rid the setting of things it does not need. This may be true, but the idea of losing things the setting does not need is vague.
What are some things you think the setting needs to lose?
An often cited example is the Chosen high powder heroes who (A) do all the work, leaving the work and/or (B) use and abuse the PCs.
What else do you think needs to go and why? Please be specific. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| The Sage |
Posted - 03 Oct 2007 : 03:41:06
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Steven Schend
And for the record, I'll take it on the chin for starting the whole primrose-laden path of non-Mystran Chosen with Jeryth Phaulkon in CITY OF SPLENDORS. Mea culpa. If I'd realized the can of worms I was opening there, I'd have never done it.
Steven, it is admirable that you are standing up to take credit for this mess. However, you didn't create the mess. You have a love and an understanding for the setting that a lot of subsequent designers have not had (and that's not a knock on anyone). It's not your fault that other people took your idea the wrong way. I think the fault lies most with the lack of the traffic cop position -- there was no one to tell these folks that there were better ways to execute their ideas.
I'm inclined to agree.
Steven, while I appreciate your wisdom in admitting this, it is hardly necessary. One need only look over the way you originally introduced Jeryth as a Chosen, to see that it was written in a fashion that clearly illustrates both a specific purpose and a necessity, of sorts. It wasn't entirely random, and reads as a development of previously existing Realmslore -- which is what I've always loved about your work.
The problem I have with the introduction of the other Chosen -- exists mainly in the way they've been "justified," for lack of a better term. Mostly, they haven't all been brought into the Realmslore in a way that follows the path you originally set down with Jeryth. So you really can't hold yourself completely responsible for the subsequent creation of Chosen selected by other deities in the Realms. Other writers/developers have followed their own methods when introducing their own Chosen-types for other deities. Some of which, for me at least, seem entirely random, or unsuitably supported by existing Realmslore.
I've no wish to lay unconstructive criticism at the feet of any particular designer or writer -- ultimately, their choices for introducing new Chosen are their own. I simply feel that, had a lesser number of new Chosen been introduced slowly into the Realmslore, each following the method Steven attempted with Jeryth, then perhaps I, and those who feel that the Realms currently has too many Chosen, wouldn't have so much of an issue with them. They would continue to remain special and wholly consistent with existing Realmslore. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 03 Oct 2007 : 03:38:48
As I've said many times... I never lump Mystra's Chosen together with the rest of the now more apparent Chosen of deities in the 3e FR.
Part of why Mystra's Chosen are unique is because of their role. They balance out Mystra, and store some of her power in case it's needed. They're kind of like the "loyal opposition" -- they are loyal to Mystra, but they are not controlled by her, and with them having some of her power, they can act in opposition to her if she gets out of control. They are also assistants of a sort; they work to further the spread of magic, but in a pinch, they can also help to maintain the Weave. That is why Mystra has Chosen. That is why hers are special. Most of the other Chosen of FR deities, or rather... "Divine Champions" as I call them, are but pale shadows.
"Divine Champion" would work well enough for any. Or any other title of specialty that doesn't reflect the connection Mystra's own Chosen have with their deity. There's virtually no basis for the connection between the roles of the other "Chosen" of the various deities and Mystra's Chosen -- so the titles should be different. To even suggest the possibility that the Divine Champions of the other deities reflect a little of what Mystra's Chosen are, takes away the charm of the Chosen of Mystra characters and makes their entire position in the Realms seem "usual."
Ultimately though, it comes directly back to the fact that there is no exact or consistent definition of what the 'Chosen' are. We look to the Realmslore and interprete Mystra's actions as merely investing select followers with certain specialised duties/roles and specific powers that are apparently crucial to the function of her faith. There are lots of different ways a god can invest a mortal follower with power, which we could arbitrarily divide into, from lesser to greater:-
- 1. priests;
- 2. things like Mystra's spellstaves;
- 3. the Chosen of Bane or Deneir, Seraph of Lies, or the Magister;
- 4. Mystra's Chosen, which are a unique case.
|
| Chosen of Moradin |
Posted - 03 Oct 2007 : 03:36:44
I trully understand what Wooly says.
I mean, I donīt have any problem with Shintala Deepcrest described as "Warden of the Green Powers", or "Emerald Defender of Nature"... it will stay much better than "Chosen of (insert god name here).
The same goes to, by example, the Rotting Man. If he was named as "Emissary of Plague", "Mouth of Talona", or something like this, I think that the character will become much more apealling.
Chosen of Moradin, the dwarf that re-allocate the Rotting Man to Mussum, in the Vilhon Reach.  |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 03 Oct 2007 : 02:59:21
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by Steven Schend
And for the record, I'll take it on the chin for starting the whole primrose-laden path of non-Mystran Chosen with Jeryth Phaulkon in CITY OF SPLENDORS. Mea culpa. If I'd realized the can of worms I was opening there, I'd have never done it.
So, it was you!
Just kidding. But I really respect how you just came out and said that. I know there are people who like the idea of non-Mystran Chosen, but I'm not one of them.
My problems with non-Mystran Chosen are threefold, and I don't think it's right to blame Steven for the spread of these non-Mystran Chosen.
1) Mystra's Chosen have a specific purpose in the setting. They don't just serve Mystra, they serve the Realms at large. While all Chosen, Mystran or no, serve the interests of their deity, Mystra is one of the only deities who has truly global interests. She has, as I see it, the most reason to have semi-divine servants. I don't see that a lot of other deities have a need for this.
2) The term "Chosen" is over-used. Mystra's Chosen carry part of her divine essense. This makes them something really quite extraordinary. Most non-Mystran Chosen just have a nifty ability or two, and that's it. They often aren't even as powerful as a moderately skilled cleric of their deity. So why do they bear a title that implies divine status and remarkable power? If they were called "Champions" or "God-touched" or anything else, I wouldn't be bothered by it.
3) The whole "Chosen" arms race. All Steven did was open the door. I don't think anyone anticipated that later designers would get on a kick of cranking out Chosen for other deities, regardless of whether or not it seemed logical.
Steven, it is admirable that you are standing up to take credit for this mess. However, you didn't create the mess. You have a love and an understanding for the setting that a lot of subsequent designers have not had (and that's not a knock on anyone). It's not your fault that other people took your idea the wrong way. I think the fault lies most with the lack of the traffic cop position -- there was no one to tell these folks that there were better ways to execute their ideas. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 03 Oct 2007 : 01:34:41
quote:
Originally posted by Steven Schend
Steven
who likens the ancient comings of spelljammers as his tip of the hat to Erik von Daniken and H.P. Lovecraft
I have to admit, I like Spelljammer because it makes me think of Star Wars--the theme music, spaceships, goofy characters. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 03 Oct 2007 : 01:31:52
quote:
Originally posted by Steven Schend
And for the record, I'll take it on the chin for starting the whole primrose-laden path of non-Mystran Chosen with Jeryth Phaulkon in CITY OF SPLENDORS. Mea culpa. If I'd realized the can of worms I was opening there, I'd have never done it.
So, it was you!
Just kidding. But I really respect how you just came out and said that. I know there are people who like the idea of non-Mystran Chosen, but I'm not one of them. |
| sirreus |
Posted - 02 Oct 2007 : 17:00:30
i don't mind the magic shops, themselves; but i reference the population and assets before allowing any item into a particular town or city. the red wizards' penchant for mercantilism as of late supports the idea of minor magic shops, but again only metro areas have the 'major' items.
There's nothing common
about sense - ??? |
| realcrowjoe |
Posted - 02 Oct 2007 : 15:33:32
Magic shops. Probably the worst idea in a long series of bad ideas foisted upon the Realms in the d20 era. Yes, the Realms as we know and love them are a high magic setting, but there's a line that was crossed with the whole MagicMart thing. As someone said a while back on one of the mailing lists, those of us who grew up on computer games are used to the notion of waltzing into a store and buying a holy avenger +10 for 1 million gp because we can and unfortunately I think what I like to call Neverwinter Nights/WoW mentality has seeped into a lot of the design decisions.
Monty Haul is the new black. 
[/quote]
I agree completely. I've never liked the idea of magic shops. One of the few things that just grates to my core, whether I'm DM or PC.
Think about it from the Thief's point of view rob the magic shop or rob the dungeon, depending on what dungeon it is, you might be easier robbing the dungeon.
Then if you consider the mindset of merchant, it goes back to the 1e days of orcs guarding the chest that has a ring of regeneration, ring of invisibility and +10 sword of insta-death that they never use. I mean some of the magic items, make the idea of making it to sell instead of making it for myself a little tough to fathom, imho |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 02 Oct 2007 : 04:08:52
quote:
Originally posted by MerrikCale
quote:
Originally posted by Brynweir
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
The problem is when rule changes affect the lore -- like the ToT covered the sudden loss of all members of the assassin class.
I never fully understood why they removed the assassin class. ?
the theory was anyone could be an assassin. That is, assassins were hired killers. fighters, rogues, mages, evil priests could all kill for cash so why make a class on it. Then in 3e instead of resurrecting the idea they made it a PrC that for some stupid reason had spells.
I agree...I never understood the spells...I never thought of Artemis as using magic! Even before him, assassins could make USE of magical items...but were not casters. I hope any future Prestige Class or actual Character Class Assassin will be more like a true assassin instead of an arcane caster. |
| MerrikCale |
Posted - 02 Oct 2007 : 01:43:44
quote:
Originally posted by Brynweir
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
The problem is when rule changes affect the lore -- like the ToT covered the sudden loss of all members of the assassin class.
I never fully understood why they removed the assassin class. ?
the theory was anyone could be an assassin. That is, assassins were hired killers. fighters, rogues, mages, evil priests could all kill for cash so why make a class on it. Then in 3e instead of resurrecting the idea they made it a PrC that for some stupid reason had spells. |
| Aewrik |
Posted - 02 Oct 2007 : 00:37:39
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
I would like to see a FR-based RPG, but even if we all "pray" for it, it won't happen. We can just hope that 4E will be a better game to get the FR feel than 3E was. (I'm not talking about the FR changes for 4E like gods dying here)
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I don't think there is a problem with the system. It's the way some WotC people have decided to apply it to the setting, like the attitude that anything that can be encountered has to be fully statted for combat.
Yeah, I know :q
I agree, it's really fun to play in. Overall, it's more cool than AD&D (since there are soooo many character options, even though some are, uh... unnecessary in the way that they're just filling out the book), but... for the creative DM, it's a real torture chamber, for the reason you give, Wooly.
Because of the "game balance" , I just can't give out xp offhandedly, since the experience points must feel motivated for the game to remain D&D. In AD&D, there is no monster advancement (from what I've seen), and there is a set amount of xp given for each monster. There is no need to include the stats in the adventure, unless you want to make the monster special. Etc, etc.
Anyone who has included a major encounter (with adjusted monsters) in a 3rd ed. adventure knows what I'm getting at. :) |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 02 Oct 2007 : 00:23:22
quote:
Originally posted by Aewrik
Heh... perhaps it should lose the D20-system?
I don't think there is a problem with the system. It's the way some WotC people have decided to apply it to the setting, like the attitude that anything that can be encountered has to be fully statted for combat. |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 01 Oct 2007 : 22:52:28
quote:
Originally posted by Aewrik
Heh... perhaps it should lose the D20-system?
I would like to see a FR-based RPG, but even if we all "pray" for it, it won't happen. We can just hope that 4E will be a better game to get the FR feel than 3E was. (I'm not talking about the FR changes for 4E like gods dying here) |
| Aewrik |
Posted - 01 Oct 2007 : 22:26:27
Heh... perhaps it should lose the D20-system? |
| Baroth |
Posted - 30 Sep 2007 : 17:56:00
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
[...]
When the rules changes affect the lore, it's best to use the lore to explain those changes. They tried to ignore that in 3E, and people are still pissed about it...
I fully agree, but ONLY when the rule changes affect the lore which should not happen or only happen in rare cases. |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 30 Sep 2007 : 16:46:15
I also think that there was still some of the feeling that was implied in the old 1st edition rules that people "in game" knew what level and class people were by what there "title" was, which was the original intent of the titles according to the 1st edition DMG. While now we tend to think that, for the most part, a class is a collection of abilities that a given character has, and their class is kind of assigned based on what most closes fits that, this wasn't the default.
I'd venture to say that the advent of D&D fiction marked the end of people "in game" knowing classes and levels of other characters by their title. It became a bit awkward to think that the court wizard would refer to "Superhero Anthaenes" and know how powerful he is.
Heck, I couldn't pick out that Riverwind or Tristan were rangers for quite a while in their respective books. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 30 Sep 2007 : 16:39:14
quote:
Originally posted by Baroth
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Baroth
I would stop trying to explain rules changes through lore and history.
The problem is when rule changes affect the lore -- like the ToT covered the sudden loss of all members of the assassin class.
Actually, that is a good example. Why would you have to kill all the assassins in the Realms just for a new ruleset? The NPCs of FR do not know anything about (rule-)classes as such and thus one could easily have said that all the assassins are now restated as rogue/assassin or rogue/fighter, no harm done. If the assassin class had some abilities that were exlusive to it and very important to the lore, one could have created or modified a class (PRC or BC) to fit.
The thing was, in 1E, assassin was a base class. And it had abilities not shared with rogues or fighters. Some of the lost 1E classes could be translated easily to a 2E class (cavaliers became fighters, for example), but someone obviously felt that this didn't apply to assassins. PrCs are a 3E invention; their predecessor was the 2E kit, which was itself a later addition. So those weren't an option, either. In fact, I think the 2E designers initially thought that the class and proficiency system would be sufficient to customize characters.
So assassins became something of a problem. Right or wrong, the designers felt the best way to handle it was to kill them off. And honestly, I like the way they did it. It worked for the way they told the story.
When the rules changes affect the lore, it's best to use the lore to explain those changes. They tried to ignore that in 3E, and people are still pissed about it... |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 30 Sep 2007 : 16:22:15
Well, the assassin thing is a part of the "clean-up" of D&D's image with 2ed. They were, with demons and devils, among the things that gave the game bad press. Therefore the assassins had to go. |
| Baroth |
Posted - 30 Sep 2007 : 09:08:49
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Baroth
I would stop trying to explain rules changes through lore and history.
The problem is when rule changes affect the lore -- like the ToT covered the sudden loss of all members of the assassin class.
Actually, that is a good example. Why would you have to kill all the assassins in the Realms just for a new ruleset? The NPCs of FR do not know anything about (rule-)classes as such and thus one could easily have said that all the assassins are now restated as rogue/assassin or rogue/fighter, no harm done. If the assassin class had some abilities that were exlusive to it and very important to the lore, one could have created or modified a class (PRC or BC) to fit.
I started playing P&P games a bit more than 10 years ago with the german game "Das Schwarze Auge" (English "The Dark Eye"), and later, I was introduced to FR and D&D in general. I was always under the impression that the rules were meant to describe a fantasy world and anything happening in it. If the rules were changed, it would not affect the game because we, the players, just switched to a more accurate description of the world. Perhaps I was misguided but the following analogy should help to understand my point.
Nowadays, physicans have a certain model of how things in our universe work (rougly). If a new underlying theory is discovered which is able to describe the processes in the universe in a better and more accurate way, they will adapt it but this won't change the processes or things in the actual world. Earth is still the third, big, floating junk of material in our solar system whether it is called Earth, planet or something completely different. |
| Chosen of Moradin |
Posted - 30 Sep 2007 : 00:59:03
quote:
Originally posted by Steven Schend
The hints of Spelljamming in long-lost legends and current clack make for good copy. Ayunken's right--they're believed to be kids' tales, but for those who know of and like spelljamming, you're plugged into another level of detail that can be played with. And THAT is one of the strengths of the Realms--have a number of different ways to look at any situation (dependent on your level of background knowledge). It can either be a legend, some other magic, spelljamming, or something else entirely.
And for the record, I'll take it on the chin for starting the whole primrose-laden path of non-Mystran Chosen with Jeryth Phaulkon in CITY OF SPLENDORS. Mea culpa. If I'd realized the can of worms I was opening there, I'd have never done it. Even so, sometimes they worked (or I like to think so) with Fzoul's work as Xvim's Champion/Chosen, albeit briefly. (And were I running an FR game myself, I'd use Wooly's Option #3 as well, simply because mortals should never know the whole truth about their gods and it's sneaky fun...and it makes Fzoul less of a shmuck for constantly shifting his allegiance.)
Steven
who likens the ancient comings of spelljammers as his tip of the hat to Erik von Daniken and H.P. Lovecraft
Now, I that talk about spelljammers give me some new ideas to my Vilhon Reach campaign (that is, basically, a psionic campaign).
Heh, if my players find the Extaaminar problematic, expect to see the neogi...  
Realmspace, here we goooo...
Chosen of Moradin, listening Bruce Dickinson - Navigate the seas of the sun |
| The Sage |
Posted - 30 Sep 2007 : 00:49:46
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Baroth
I would stop trying to explain rules changes through lore and history.
The problem is when rule changes affect the lore -- like the ToT covered the sudden loss of all members of the assassin class.
This is now the result of a retcon. In the FRCS, on pg. 264, it states that only the assassins that worshiped Bhaal were killed, and thus, not ALL assassins were eradicated during the demise of Bhaal.
Additionally, it is important to note that only those characters in the Realms who had assassin class would've actually died (which means any unstatted characters before this time could have easily survived the event).
|
| Brynweir |
Posted - 29 Sep 2007 : 22:45:44
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
The problem is when rule changes affect the lore -- like the ToT covered the sudden loss of all members of the assassin class.
I never fully understood why they removed the assassin class. ? |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 29 Sep 2007 : 22:36:40
quote:
Originally posted by Baroth
I would stop trying to explain rules changes through lore and history.
The problem is when rule changes affect the lore -- like the ToT covered the sudden loss of all members of the assassin class. |
| Baroth |
Posted - 29 Sep 2007 : 19:06:45
As some already mentionend, I, too, would not "kill off" or "lose" anything just like that in the current FR. However, there is quite a lot of material that I would like to see being rewritten or partly redesigned. Most of the "real world material" could be described in own terms instead of using "real world material". For example, egyptian themed lands are fine, but copying the gods from our myths is unoriginal and especially less appealing than original material.
I would stop trying to explain rules changes through lore and history. If one does not use rule terms within lore, there is no problem with changing the underlying rules. For example, instead of saying that Mystra banned 10th+ level spells after the fall of Nethril one could have said that she just banned a certain powerful spells, but still allowing rituals.
|
| Kajehase |
Posted - 29 Sep 2007 : 17:50:28
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
I don't think its a bad thing to have this sort of real life counterpart in a game.
I agree, but I think the name "CCC" is rather...obvious.
I dunno. I'm not sure why a County Cricket Club would go about bashing orcs, me. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 29 Sep 2007 : 15:58:23
quote:
Originally posted by Steven Schend
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
I don't think its a bad thing to have this sort of real life counterpart in a game.
I agree, but I think the name "CCC" is rather...obvious.
One thing that bothers me about that... Since when has anyone in the Realms used an acronym?
Well, there's King Haedrak Lhorik Errilam Ashar Olosar Rhindaun of Tethyr, also once known by the scrambled acronymical of Lhaeo....
Steven
who confesses he's probably gotten a name or two wrong under Haedrak's name, as he can't remember all five royal names off the top of his head at this point....
Really? That's where the name Lhaeo came from? I had no idea... |
| Steven Schend |
Posted - 29 Sep 2007 : 15:31:07
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
I don't think its a bad thing to have this sort of real life counterpart in a game.
I agree, but I think the name "CCC" is rather...obvious.
One thing that bothers me about that... Since when has anyone in the Realms used an acronym?
Well, there's King Haedrak Lhorik Errilam Ashar Olosar Rhindaun of Tethyr, also once known by the scrambled acronymical of Lhaeo....
Steven
who confesses he's probably gotten a name or two wrong under Haedrak's name, as he can't remember all five royal names off the top of his head at this point.... |
| Steven Schend |
Posted - 29 Sep 2007 : 15:22:00
The hints of Spelljamming in long-lost legends and current clack make for good copy. Ayunken's right--they're believed to be kids' tales, but for those who know of and like spelljamming, you're plugged into another level of detail that can be played with. And THAT is one of the strengths of the Realms--have a number of different ways to look at any situation (dependent on your level of background knowledge). It can either be a legend, some other magic, spelljamming, or something else entirely.
And for the record, I'll take it on the chin for starting the whole primrose-laden path of non-Mystran Chosen with Jeryth Phaulkon in CITY OF SPLENDORS. Mea culpa. If I'd realized the can of worms I was opening there, I'd have never done it. Even so, sometimes they worked (or I like to think so) with Fzoul's work as Xvim's Champion/Chosen, albeit briefly. (And were I running an FR game myself, I'd use Wooly's Option #3 as well, simply because mortals should never know the whole truth about their gods and it's sneaky fun...and it makes Fzoul less of a shmuck for constantly shifting his allegiance.)
Steven
who likens the ancient comings of spelljammers as his tip of the hat to Erik von Daniken and H.P. Lovecraft |
| Chosen of Moradin |
Posted - 29 Sep 2007 : 15:01:23
quote:
Originally posted by dalor_darden
It seems to me that Drow really aren't any extreme focus in the Realms. They have always been enemies of the elves...and highly active in the area of the Dales. What makes it seem like such an intense focus, as far as I'm concerned, are the novels. Drizzt sells books (although I like Artemis more than him...but I do like Drizzt). Daughter of the Drow wasn't a lousy work either.
The real kicker that has made drow MUCH more visible is the Cormanthor War and the Crusade. Before that, none of the folks of the Realms even realized there had been a massive invasion of the Elven Court by Drow...we the readers knew...but the people of the Dales thought that perhaps they were just going through another period of raids and banditry.
That's my take at least.
I would like to see the Drow go back to being more of an Underdark race than the efforts that have shown them as wanting to return to the surface.
Itīs the novel focus that bother me. And Iīm not speaking that some of these novels arenīt good. Starlight and Shadows trilogy is the best realms trilogy that I known (IMO, dudes, IMO). But, after all these years, with all these drow novels, I stay tired of drows.  |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 29 Sep 2007 : 05:48:24
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
I don't think its a bad thing to have this sort of real life counterpart in a game.
I agree, but I think the name "CCC" is rather...obvious.
One thing that bothers me about that... Since when has anyone in the Realms used an acronym? |
|
|
