| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Giant Snake |
Posted - 14 Apr 2020 : 05:02:35
I’m rereading the Dark Elf saga to get caught up on lore before I branch out into other realms books. I notice how much Salvatore grew as a writer in a short period of time with the contrast in Crystal Shard and the later written books.
I think the first three in chronology show where he started to get away from required D&d explanation, even though they necessarily have to give the most explanation. The talk of named spells familiar to gamers and “innate abilities” just seems so clunky that it kills the realism for me. Ironically the way he treats religion seems so much more natural and correct, accurately describing contractual rituals. It’s kind of a frustrating contrast and I suspect that the parts that don’t read as well are something that was tied in to the writing contract, because you can see how much better he is in the same book.
Does anyone else feel this way? That good stories are hurt by a requirement to coincide with a game rulebook? |
| 6 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Giant Snake |
Posted - 14 Apr 2020 : 22:55:05
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-In terms of character actions, there is nothing that really jumps out at me. I don't remember any instances of like apprentice magicians chucking fireballs, or fledgling priests bringing anyone back from the dead. Drizzt and what he can/can't do in a fight is probably the obvious example of a character's capabilities not necessarily matching what is presented in the D&D rules, but to me, that's easy to look past because it is whatever, it's not "world breaking" or anything like that. If a D&D fighter only gets, say, 3 attacks and Drizzt is twirling off 7, eh, whatever.
I mean more about how it's worded in the novel, especially with Drizzt's innate Dark Elf ability to call forth a shroud. It gets explained kind of poorly tbh and I think it's because it is trying too hard to match up with a game ability rather than written naturally. One good description and maybe even an explanation would be enough, but what happens is that it is explained so often with its capabilities and limitations that it detracts from what's actually going on in the scene.
Keep in mind that I haven't played the games and I know how rules are only tangentially, so respect for an actual ruleset is less important to me than narrative. I do understand, however, how limitations have to be in place in a world where magic is a common thing. I just think it could be more compelling. And credit where it's due: for whatever reason it has to be in there, Salvatore does it a lot better than other authors I've read, that's for sure.
On the other hand, the contractual relationship with the gods and their bestowments is very well done in all the books where they play a part. Perhaps this is because they aren't limited the way a character would be in a game setting? |
| TheIriaeban |
Posted - 14 Apr 2020 : 19:21:49
Bingo. It was trying to explain Drizzt's number of attacks that I came up with the system. So, in my system, he is a specialist with sabres and a grand master at two-weapon style. That gives him 11/2 attacks (which is what I saw as his rate in the last publication I saw his stats in). |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 14 Apr 2020 : 18:45:41
Drizzt is actually one of the best examples of the rules not always matching the character capability. He generally doesn't quite fit into any particular set of rules until they design a particular class/kit/Prestige Class/whatever that appears to have his capabilities in mind.
This is more or less true for a lot of characters, but Drizzt is one of the ones that's been re-statted the most frequently (sometimes, multiple times within one rules edition), so he's the best example of it. |
| TheIriaeban |
Posted - 14 Apr 2020 : 18:03:32
I combined the 2.5e rules for grandmaster skill with a weapon with a grandmaster level two-weapon style and came up with 13/2 maximum. There is currently only one guy in my campaign that has that and it is only because he is the chosen of Tempus (it is part of a plan Tempus came up with the Red Knight to have someone remove Garagos as a thorn in Tempus' side). Naturally, he has a pair of bracers of blinding strike so for 3 rounds a day, he can do 13 attacks in one round. He is going to need that when he takes on Garagos. |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 14 Apr 2020 : 17:20:22
-I'm not a fan of slavish devotion to the D&D rules (at the time), but given that D&D is the backdrop, it is important to at least work within the framework of how heroes are supposed to be presented. As far as I remember from his books, I think Salvatore did stray a bit from that at times, but given he is the author, I can respect his characters' "sovereignty" at the same time, and the fact that they are characters for a novel in a living, breathing story, not NPCs on a sidebar.
-In terms of character actions, there is nothing that really jumps out at me. I don't remember any instances of like apprentice magicians chucking fireballs, or fledgling priests bringing anyone back from the dead. Drizzt and what he can/can't do in a fight is probably the obvious example of a character's capabilities not necessarily matching what is presented in the D&D rules, but to me, that's easy to look past because it is whatever, it's not "world breaking" or anything like that. If a D&D fighter only gets, say, 3 attacks and Drizzt is twirling off 7, eh, whatever. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 14 Apr 2020 : 10:40:20
Actually, what I've noticed is that frequently, characters do things not possible in the rules. |
|
|
