| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Lewton |
Posted - 15 May 2009 : 01:43:37
Am I the only one that isn't real pleased with the direction of the Realms. I mean, I've been reading the novels since the beginning. I'm just not happy with the newer books. I understand there is always change in things, but since the Year of Blue Fire, is there no ordinary people anymore. Is everyone scar'd or have special powers. The books don't deal with regular people much. What happened to the normal adventures. I continue to buy and read the books, but just don't get the "feel" for them. Maybe it's just me. Just throwing it out there. From one Realms reader to another. Just wondering. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Dart Ambermoon |
Posted - 13 Oct 2009 : 03:04:43
In principle, I agree with many things you´ve said there Therise, although I do elieve there is a difference between using a Spellscar with a character in play to using one with a character in a novel (and I do really hate spellscars as a FR concept, mind you).
In a novel, I believe it´s a tool not unlike classical fantasy themes like curses or somesuch, and if the writer is good it shouldn´t fuction as a detriment to the story (as in the excellent Downshadow for instance), yet I absolutely agree that it can quickly become detrimental to a good story, when the character is defined by the spellscar, instead of it only being an aspect of the character. Novel characters are often seasoned , with a history already there which unfolds during the story. If done well and fitting the context, I don´t mind a spellscar. As long as not every future protagonist is going to have one, that is.
So, I absolutely agree with you Cattie-Brie et al expample, and there´s no way spellscars woud ever make it into my campaign, are something that feels Realmsian to me or will be something I´d be enthused about when picking up a novel. But I believe that a good writer will make his character memorable with or without it. But only REALLY good writer. |
| Therise |
Posted - 12 Oct 2009 : 01:53:18
I never liked the idea of spellscars, and have therefore never used them in my games. In both novels and in game, the spellscar often seems to overwhelm the character as a character. The story is about the spellscar, what happens to it, what it does to the person, rather than the story being driven by character motivations.
It's a bit like having a Marvel mutant power. Only truly excellent writers in mutant stories (imho, someone like Chris Claremont) can keep the ability from taking precedence over the character. Usually, you just get superhero/supervillain with PowerX, and the whole story revolves around the power.
In the early days with RAS, Catti-brie was cool not because she had a magic bow, but because of who she was. She could put the bow down. Elminster, the Seven Sisters, Drizzt, we have seen what they are like when their powers are taken away or they are forced to rely on human (or simple) cunning.
Magic is icing on the cake of a character. It should never be a "scar". Scars are permanent, they are usually ugly, and when present from the beginning of a story it becomes difficult if not impossible to separate the spellscar from the character (in terms of story, not just physically or magically preventing scar-related powers).
Give a new D&D player at level one a +5 magic sword, and the story is all about the sword. At best, you can take the sword away, but the player will make his journey about getting it back. Spellscars are not only the +5 sword, they cannot really be taken away without serious consequences to the characterization.
That's the problem as I see it. Spellscars get in the way of the very thing that the Forgotten Realms was meant to do best: help people develop their characters and tell a rich story about themselves, their friends and allies. Sure, they may gain powers, although that comes with adventure. Special powers are the icing, not the cake. Unless you want a really basic mutant superhero comic book. |
| Delzounblood |
Posted - 10 Oct 2009 : 15:10:09
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Delzounblood
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
Interestingly enough, I've never actually used time-travel in my Realms. It's not that I'm against the idea [in fact, I adore the concept], rather, I just can't determine how I'd like to use it as a plot-device.
Dragonlance seemed to pull it off rarther well with Fistandan......ious/Raistlin, if I remember Cameron and Tas went aswell though Tas was not meant too, A Kender back in time "shudders"
Prehaps in your own game your characters could be sent back to stop the spell plauge or to stop Nethril falling or even to help the time off troubles or something. Just ideas! only if you want to muck around with cannon.
oh and sorry for any name spelling errors!! Fistandan......thingy must dig out books again.
Delz
Fistandantilus.
Interestingly, Tracy Hickman's Appendix for the hardcover of Dragons of a Vanished Moon has an intriguing treatise on time-travel and how it relates to the world of Krynn. With just a little tinkering, it could probably work for the Realms too.
Thanks for the spelcheck |
| Kiaransalyn |
Posted - 09 Oct 2009 : 16:38:43
quote:
Originally posted by Lewton
Am I the only one that isn't real pleased with the direction of the Realms.
Nope. The new direction has caused a bit of schism. Exciting times for neutral observers but not so for many of us. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 09 Oct 2009 : 14:42:46
quote:
Originally posted by Delzounblood
Prehaps in your own game your characters could be sent back to stop the spell plauge or to stop Nethril falling or even to help the time off troubles or something. Just ideas! only if you want to muck around with cannon.
Having 1479 characters travel back in time to stop the Sellplague is something I've considered; it's about all I would do in the 1479 timeframe. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 09 Oct 2009 : 14:16:50
quote:
Originally posted by Delzounblood
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
Interestingly enough, I've never actually used time-travel in my Realms. It's not that I'm against the idea [in fact, I adore the concept], rather, I just can't determine how I'd like to use it as a plot-device.
Dragonlance seemed to pull it off rarther well with Fistandan......ious/Raistlin, if I remember Cameron and Tas went aswell though Tas was not meant too, A Kender back in time "shudders"
Prehaps in your own game your characters could be sent back to stop the spell plauge or to stop Nethril falling or even to help the time off troubles or something. Just ideas! only if you want to muck around with cannon.
oh and sorry for any name spelling errors!! Fistandan......thingy must dig out books again.
Delz
Fistandantilus.
Interestingly, Tracy Hickman's Appendix for the hardcover of Dragons of a Vanished Moon has an intriguing treatise on time-travel and how it relates to the world of Krynn. With just a little tinkering, it could probably work for the Realms too. |
| Delzounblood |
Posted - 09 Oct 2009 : 08:42:37
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
Interestingly enough, I've never actually used time-travel in my Realms. It's not that I'm against the idea [in fact, I adore the concept], rather, I just can't determine how I'd like to use it as a plot-device.
Dragonlance seemed to pull it off rarther well with Fistandan......ious/Raistlin, if I remember Cameron and Tas went aswell though Tas was not meant too, A Kender back in time "shudders"
Prehaps in your own game your characters could be sent back to stop the spell plauge or to stop Nethril falling or even to help the time off troubles or something. Just ideas! only if you want to muck around with cannon.
oh and sorry for any name spelling errors!! Fistandan......thingy must dig out books again.
Delz |
| The Sage |
Posted - 09 Oct 2009 : 03:04:16
I always preferred the 'Ionic Column' exterior.  |
| Lady Fellshot |
Posted - 09 Oct 2009 : 03:00:53
Find a large armoire that's bigger on the inside  . Make sure you have some crazy evil fellow who says that he's "the master" that the party has to defeat.  |
| The Sage |
Posted - 09 Oct 2009 : 00:43:27
"It's your kids, Marty, something has got to be done about your kids!"
...
Interestingly enough, I've never actually used time-travel in my Realms. It's not that I'm against the idea [in fact, I adore the concept], rather, I just can't determine how I'd like to use it as a plot-device. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 08 Oct 2009 : 19:03:34
"Marty! Quick! You've got to come with me! The future depends on it!" |
| Richard Lee Byers |
Posted - 08 Oct 2009 : 14:40:50
Actually, swifty, in a fantasy universe, you could. It just takes a really heavy-handed application of time travel and changing the past. |
| swifty |
Posted - 08 Oct 2009 : 14:22:36
the problem with jumping forward 100 years is you can hardly reverse the decision. |
| Jagou |
Posted - 08 Oct 2009 : 13:52:03
I haven't posted here in ages but I felt it necessary to dig up my username and pass so that I could take the time to express my disapointment and dissatisfaction with the direction the realms are taking in relation to the post spellplague era.
I didn't read all of the posts previous to my own... just too much to go through, but I did scan through many.
I had been wondering if I was alone in my dislike for the post spellplague novels. It appears I am not.
These books have been my sanity and my solace for nearly a decade and now I find that the fantasy world I've come to really truly care about has been turned upside down.
I am sorely disappointed and upset.
I don't know how these things happen or who makes the decisions but I hope that I can express my opinion and maybe the 'powers that be' will take some heed.
I love the realms for what they are and have been throughout the years. If I was interested in change... I'd have bought into Ebberon or I would read Dragonlance or something else... there were already many different fantasy worlds out there to choose from.
I'm not going to buy anymore FR books that are post spellplague. The few I've read have been decent but the world itself is not attractive to me anymore.
The points other folks have raised, everyone has a spellscar and the pilgrims etc.... I agree with. The taste has changed, and for me, it's no longer palatable.
It'd be nice to think it could go back, but I don't see that happening. I don't think this was a wise direction for the series to take and I will make the assumption that book sales will decrease.
I feel like the folks here are somewhat kindred spirits and that you will understand my rant. I hope so.
I'm missing only a few novels, otherwise my FR collection is nearly complete. I've read just about ALL of them. I can't believe I'm saying goodbye to something that's meant so much to me for so long.
|
| The Sage |
Posted - 26 May 2009 : 01:14:54
quote:
Originally posted by Brian R. James
Funny thing about Dragonmarks is that the first time I saw a picture of one I thought "Damn, that looks just like Azure Bonds"
As did I. In fact, I once asked Keith in his "Ask Keith Baker" thread over at Wizards about the inspiration for the Dragonmarks. As I recall, while he was familiar with the Azure Bonds, they weren't in any way responsible for his work on the House Dragonmarks.
|
| Brian R. James |
Posted - 25 May 2009 : 21:01:00
Funny thing about Dragonmarks is that the first time I saw a picture of one I thought "Damn, that looks just like Azure Bonds" |
| Lewton |
Posted - 25 May 2009 : 18:22:42
quote:
Originally posted by LucianBarasu
Back on main topic and question,
I think what the OP was getting at, wasn't the spellscar and the nuances of each character portrayed in novels. We're digging too far into it.
I think i know what the Original Poster meant, and I tend to agree.
Like in Eddie's and Elaine's novel, City of Splendors. THe noble kids with their pretty cloaks..didn't have super powers, they did not have uber fighting prowess, they were mere noble teens/youts(cousin vinny)trying to figure out what was going on in the city around them.
Cattie brie. Female. tough from growing up with daddy one-eye. She isn't fantastical. She isn't all powerful. She is a mortal girl with a special bow and quiver (and/or mean sword depending)..
Or even Pikel: Small green bearded dwarf (with supernatural racial abilities, but rarely used) a druid with a club. Yes a spell caster. something we all know and accept in the Forgotten Realms universe as common, but still very much approachable as a character you can relate to.
This is the type of character I am thinking the Original Poster was eluding to. Characters that are easily identifiable and realatable(a word?) anyway you see my point. I think in general, the power"step up" into the 4th edition, while perfectly fine for some, seems to be abundant in every single character written within the "Spell plague years" to date.
No simple blacksmith, who picks up a strange item, that sets off an adventure creating a hero out of a blacksmith.
it's now turned to A hero is born, follow the adventures of heroX, to see him be a hero.
the "human" quality of simple character turned hero is not as evident in 4th edition novels, is the OP's main gripe...
....and I agree.
In my lack of orginality and thought. This post sum's up what I was trying to get at. I just couldn't express myself in that manner. They hit it pretty much on the head. Thanks for putting words into my mouth. |
| Kairin |
Posted - 25 May 2009 : 13:22:34
I don't like 4e Forgotten Realms, because I don't think it feels like FR anymore. I guess that is a common and vague complain. But I don't mind the idea in itself, I only kind of think that it would fit better as a new setting. The good Forgotten Realms authors still write entertaining books, it doesn't matter if it is the 3e world or 4e world. I just miss the old world and I still place my games there. I don't mind reading the new books at all, but I will only buy the fiction, not the RPG books. |
| Rosemary Jones |
Posted - 25 May 2009 : 09:01:15
I've been avoiding writing about world changing events because...well, they change the world. And they always feel like a bit of a dead end for me. Whee, world saved, now what do people do? I like to leave my endings a little looser, with the feeling that there are more adventures just around the corner for my characters -- or just more life to be lived.
Having less than super-powered characters makes so much easier to dump them into trouble and leave them without a shovel to dig themselves out. Hence Crypt, where the strongest character should have been the magic-user, except she got her arm broken in Chapter 1, lost all her potions, and couldn't do much. Leaving the very human fighter stuck with most of the rough work.
My current heroine is a city girl (Waterdeep) who battles her way out of trouble with a wicker basket and couple of bricks, and the odd candlestick. As an author, that's a fun to play with. And the whole point of the book is not to change Waterdeep, but to keep Waterdeep from changing (at least that is one character's mission and it gets people around him into major trouble). But it's nice that some of the other Waterdeep authors were telling "bigger" stories about problems with the Blackstaff etc. Because it let one of my characters realistically do some nefarious deals figuring nobody high up would notice, being so busy with the "big events" happening elsewhere.
|
| Kentinal |
Posted - 25 May 2009 : 08:01:52
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Lee Byers
Wooly, tight continuity is generally considered to make writers less free "to just tell a story." But maybe I don't understand exactly what you mean.
Well this has been an issue with me as well, too tight might be a problem with writing, however too loose changes Canon.
A single fact in a book changes history, for example dark elves were always green elves.
As for writers in general I have read many in a single novel that have no internal continuity. That is bad enough, however when writing for a shared world the errors pile up much quicker when there is no continuity editor (or an effective one). |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 20 May 2009 : 18:18:37
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Lee Byers
Wooly, tight continuity is generally considered to make writers less free "to just tell a story." But maybe I don't understand exactly what you mean.
What I mean is that I think that authors were freer to tell stories simply for the sake of doing so, as opposed to the trend we saw in 3E where every novel had to have some event that was bigger than in the last. Pre-3E authors wrote more tales to add to the setting and flesh it out, while it seemed that a lot of the 3E stuff was just to have major events and sell novels. In other words, less setting-driven stories and more sales-driven stories.
And of course I intend no disrespect. I enjoyed the Rogue Dragons trilogy, save for some already voiced quibbles we discussed years ago. |
| Richard Lee Byers |
Posted - 20 May 2009 : 18:05:42
Wooly, tight continuity is generally considered to make writers less free "to just tell a story." But maybe I don't understand exactly what you mean. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 20 May 2009 : 15:36:29
quote:
Originally posted by swifty
ive yet to read any of the 4e novels but as im only a reader and not a gamer i dont think it will bother me as much.as for the novels themselves i actually think the general standard of the books is higher than 10 to 12 years ago.there was a real lack of quality control back in the late 90s imo.
I actually go the other way, on that one... I think that the control over the novels was much tighter then, with less continuity gaffes and more concern over just telling a good story. And I think the majority of the stories were better, too. We had stinkers then, too, but a lot of good novels.
This isn't to say that we haven't have good stories more recently or that the current authors don't care about continuity -- I just feel that contiuity was tighter then and that the authors were freer to just tell a story. |
| swifty |
Posted - 20 May 2009 : 09:34:23
ive yet to read any of the 4e novels but as im only a reader and not a gamer i dont think it will bother me as much.as for the novels themselves i actually think the general standard of the books is higher than 10 to 12 years ago.there was a real lack of quality control back in the late 90s imo. |
| LucianBarasu |
Posted - 19 May 2009 : 20:26:18
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
@Lucian (hi LB!):
Who let Eric out of his cage? Who told you to stop writing? You need punished. :P
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
That's a valid point you have there, and I think you captured the OP quite well (did he, Lewton?).
I think we might be too specific even to apply it to 4e FR in particular. There are lots of different kinds of fantasy, from high-powered to low-powered, and FR has always been a high-magic, fairly high-powered setting (Spellfire, anyone?). I don't think dealing with (to borrow the term) superheroes is unique to 4e FR.
That said, there have been lots of very effective, small-scale stories told in the setting, some with people who don't have lots of powers (or at least don't initially). It's a function of what sort of characters you want to read about, and if you want to read about lower-power (as you phrase it, "normal") characters, then more power to you.
Cheers
ESDB, I do agree there are many types of settings, and high powered settings are different from low magic ones. But what I am saying is that there have been "low powered" stories written within Faerun's borders, within the "high magic setting" and those stories are what seem the OP is stating is lacking of late within the canon novels.
The City of Splendors.. was in Waterdeep. IN Faerun. in Forgotten Realms. High magic setting. High fantasy. but each hero or villian or whatnot did not need the "power cosmic" in order to be considered a hero. IT was more of a political thing, but the end of the book, was action, sword fighting, and even beholder eyes firing off, but the story's heroes still were not given the 'super soldier serum" (to keep on your stolen vernacular)
I love the new books, even the ones my name is NOT in the dedication page,:) but the OP is saying of late.. OF LATE, most book have been as a higher "power level" than the older books. and I agree. I am not saying i dislike them. i love them, but it's nice to be able to see a few normal mortals who have no powers, become heroes. And you and Byers did a good job explaining the authors having the wide toy-store eyes for what's "new and shiny" in the Realms, and I and the rest cannot fault you. it's a new source for storytelling. great stuff, but i agree, of late, a lot of the novels have been "kicked up a notch" in regards to the powers of the heroes/villians.
(okay that's enough pop culture refrences and genre mixing for me.) |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 19 May 2009 : 20:25:00
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
You are correct sir, but they are similar to Aberrant Dragonmarks (which can appear on anyone, are considered 'evil' and the powers derived can be just about anything).
Ooh, well played, sir--well played. I had forgotten about Aberrant marks. They are closer in effect, yes, though still not the result of a disease or curse . . . that I know of. Granted, I'm hardly an Eberron expert.
I sense a disturbance in the FR . . . is it just research, or have you been seduced by the Eberronic side?
And now back to your regularly scheduled discussion . . .
Cheers |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 19 May 2009 : 19:45:58
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
@Ashe: Well, *I* for one respect your likes and dislikes, and thank you for sticking by how you feel.
I disagree with you regarding spellscars being identical or even similar to dragonmarks. IMO, the conflation was mostly a result of hype because the concepts *seemed* similar--"mark" and "scar"--but I think when we actually saw the rules and saw the scars in novels, they were totally different. Dragonmarks are a *good* thing to have, denote noble status, and are a result of heredity. Spellscars are a *bad* thing to have, brand you as "less than" your fellows, and are the result of a curse/disease/random fate. Though the mechanics might be superficially similar (i.e., take feats to master your powers), they're otherwise pretty much opposites.
You are correct sir, but they are similar to Aberrant Dragonmarks (which can appear on anyone, are considered 'evil' and the powers derived can be just about anything). |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 19 May 2009 : 19:25:12
@Ashe: Well, *I* for one respect your likes and dislikes, and thank you for sticking by how you feel.
I disagree with you regarding spellscars being identical or even similar to dragonmarks. IMO, the conflation was mostly a result of hype because the concepts *seemed* similar--"mark" and "scar"--but I think when we actually saw the rules and saw the scars in novels, they were totally different. Dragonmarks are a *good* thing to have, denote noble status, and are a result of heredity. Spellscars are a *bad* thing to have, brand you as "less than" your fellows, and are the result of a curse/disease/random fate. Though the mechanics might be superficially similar (i.e., take feats to master your powers), they're otherwise pretty much opposites.
None of that has ANYTHING to do with whether you like them or not. I just don't want it taken as *fact* that the two are one and the same.
I, for one, would never write something that was distinctly Eberron into one of my books just because I thought it was *cool*.
@Lucian (hi LB!): That's a valid point you have there, and I think you captured the OP quite well (did he, Lewton?).
I think we might be too specific even to apply it to 4e FR in particular. There are lots of different kinds of fantasy, from high-powered to low-powered, and FR has always been a high-magic, fairly high-powered setting (Spellfire, anyone?). I don't think dealing with (to borrow the term) superheroes is unique to 4e FR.
That said, there have been lots of very effective, small-scale stories told in the setting, some with people who don't have lots of powers (or at least don't initially). It's a function of what sort of characters you want to read about, and if you want to read about lower-power (as you phrase it, "normal") characters, then more power to you.
As to whether you as a reader can relate to a character, as I said before, that isn't necessarily a function of whether that character just desperately swings a sword around or melts people with beams from her eyes (though if you've got something against high octane magic-users, that's your business). IMO, that's about the writing.
Cheers |
| LucianBarasu |
Posted - 19 May 2009 : 18:58:47
Back on main topic and question,
I think what the OP was getting at, wasn't the spellscar and the nuances of each character portrayed in novels. We're digging too far into it.
I think i know what the Original Poster meant, and I tend to agree.
Like in Eddie's and Elaine's novel, City of Splendors. THe noble kids with their pretty cloaks..didn't have super powers, they did not have uber fighting prowess, they were mere noble teens/youts(cousin vinny)trying to figure out what was going on in the city around them.
Cattie brie. Female. tough from growing up with daddy one-eye. She isn't fantastical. She isn't all powerful. She is a mortal girl with a special bow and quiver (and/or mean sword depending)..
Or even Pikel: Small green bearded dwarf (with supernatural racial abilities, but rarely used) a druid with a club. Yes a spell caster. something we all know and accept in the Forgotten Realms universe as common, but still very much approachable as a character you can relate to.
This is the type of character I am thinking the Original Poster was eluding to. Characters that are easily identifiable and realatable(a word?) anyway you see my point. I think in general, the power"step up" into the 4th edition, while perfectly fine for some, seems to be abundant in every single character written within the "Spell plague years" to date.
No simple blacksmith, who picks up a strange item, that sets off an adventure creating a hero out of a blacksmith.
it's now turned to A hero is born, follow the adventures of heroX, to see him be a hero.
the "human" quality of simple character turned hero is not as evident in 4th edition novels, is the OP's main gripe...
....and I agree. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 19 May 2009 : 18:34:05
I know that my main objection to it is that it's almost identical in form and function to Eberron's Dragonmarks. I like the idea of Dragonmarks, Warforged and all the stuff that makes Eberron what it is. I don't like that it felt a lot of 'new stuff' introduced into the Realms with 4th Edition feals like them spreading Eberron to other settings.
I appreciate both CR and Wooly's arguments, and the stories I have read with spellscarred characters are well written and show them as vibrant people learning to deal with something beyond their control. However, I just don't feel spellscars belong in the Realms any more than the floating motes or Returned Abeir. I respect those that do like those elements in their Realms, and I'm not asking them to give that up, simply that they respect my likes and dislikes as well. |
|
|
