| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| slay_4_pay |
Posted - 28 Jun 2008 : 02:33:32
I've been reading a lot of posts, both here and on the WoTC site, and something I've noticed is several people complaining about characters in novels violating the laws of game mechanics. Personally, I think this is kind of silly. If an author has to constrain himself to only doing things within the rules of the game, it could seriously hinder storytelling. I don't know I just think a good story is much more important than strict adherence to game mechanics. If anyone disagrees, I would be interested in hearing your counterpoint. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Glantir |
Posted - 12 Aug 2008 : 17:55:29
quote:
Orininally posted by ErikScottdeBie
From the perspective of one of the novel writers, the rules make a good guideline for keeping the characters consistent in certain ways, primarily spells and certain abilities.
And that's what I think is important. When I read a novel which is based in the FR universe I want to recognise that the story and the game mechanics are coherent. Of course it is not necessary to describe a combat round by round or things like that.
But I want characters casting spells which a) exist in the realms and b) are appropriate for their level of experience. I also demand that an author uses places, history, monsters and items as they are described in the rulebooks because this is what makes the novel a FR novel.
Besides that, I remember having read the phrase "And then he hit the monster critcally" in an older FR novel. I don't know which it is at the moment but I still know that I bursted into laughter  .
|
| Icelander |
Posted - 12 Aug 2008 : 16:01:21
quote:
Originally posted by Thauramarth
I agree that there is ample potential for the rules and the requirements of a good storyflow to conflict. I do not, however, think that it's a good idea to adapt the rules to fit the novels. Remember, that's how the AD&D community ended up with a couple of thousand spellfire-wielding dual-sword swinging bearded, pipe-smoking drow archmages of Bane who can kill a giant with a single hit. A random example, not based on any real cases that any of us may have heard of, you do understand  .
No matter the rule system, it's the GM's job to lay groundrules for the campaign. If both the players and the GM want to play characters like that, there's no problem. If someone creates such a character when the other players have different expectations for the game or the GM doesn't want them, we have a communication problem, not a rule problem.
D&D, GURPS or any other system, it's never going to replace common sense and the ability to collectively agree what kind of campaign is desired.
quote:
Originally posted by Thauramarth
AD&D was not my favorite game mechanic (GURPS is), but it's the game system that I have used most in my roleplaying games, because it happened to be the best supported, by a couple of very nice worlds. Of course, you can convert game mechanics, but it tends to be a lot of upfront work (has anyone tried to convert Khelben Arunsun to a GURPS equivalent, recently?).
I've not needed Khelben's exact stats so far, but I don't think it would be a problem. Hell, I can run other high-level wizards on the fly with GURPS rules easily enough, so why should he give me problems?
It's not like figuring out his point cost needs to be done when he's encountered as an NPC.
quote:
Originally posted by Thauramarth
I am sure there was a point to this post, but I have been interrupted three times already, and I forgot all about it.
If rambling old sages can't argue the finer points of obscure lore without either of them having a semblence of a point; then what the hell are we doing here?  |
| Thauramarth |
Posted - 12 Aug 2008 : 13:04:58
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
If following the rules of the game hinders storytelling, mightn't there be something wrong with the rules? After all, their purpose is to codify our collective storytelling efforts, so if their are inherently limiting to stories, they can't be performing their function correctly, can they?
I think that's a really great point.
To quote Sir Humphrey Appleby, "yes... and no."
I agree that there is ample potential for the rules and the requirements of a good storyflow to conflict. I do not, however, think that it's a good idea to adapt the rules to fit the novels. Remember, that's how the AD&D community ended up with a couple of thousand spellfire-wielding dual-sword swinging bearded, pipe-smoking drow archmages of Bane who can kill a giant with a single hit. A random example, not based on any real cases that any of us may have heard of, you do understand .
I've been playing RPGs for 23 years now, and all that time I have seen and heard debates about D&D being an "unrealistic" game system, I have seen people pound huge articles to make it more realistic, and I have seen the Grand Old Man of D&D explain how it is possible that a 50-pound gnome (who happens to be a 10th-level fighter with 70 hit points armed with a apen-knife) can survive being pounded by a 400-pound ogre wielding a mid-sized tree-trunk. A hit is not a hit, you see, it depends on what the meaning of "is" is, and so on.
AD&D was not my favorite game mechanic (GURPS is), but it's the game system that I have used most in my roleplaying games, because it happened to be the best supported, by a couple of very nice worlds. Of course, you can convert game mechanics, but it tends to be a lot of upfront work (has anyone tried to convert Khelben Arunsun to a GURPS equivalent, recently?).
For pure storytelling, D&D is not a good system. But then again, no roleplaying system is perfect (or even very good) for pure storytelling, if it's realism that you're looking for. Then you are probably better off with pure freeform. It's just that... Well, I like my roleplaying bits, but there are moments when all I want out of a night's gaming is just blasting away at whatever moves, and do it at a good pace. And D&D works just fine for that, if you're familiar with the rules. I guess that if one wants perfect lockstep between the novels and the rules, there should not be any adaptations to the rules - there should be no game rules at all. Except that then, it would not be a game anymore, it'd be improvisation theatre (which is fin, too). But then you would no longer have that little thrill of rolling your saving throw against the red dragons fiery, burrito-fueled belch, and have that little thrill to get away with all but two of your hit points. You'd lose that bit of pure randomness, that neither DM nor player can control, and appeals to me, as a gamer.
I suppose that the point I am trying to make is that RPGs (and their rulesystems) and novels are basically separate things, with distinct objectives. Incidentally, IMHO, the predominance of novels over game that has afflicted D&D in general, and FR in particular, is not a good thing.
Novels are all about change - start, middle, finish, and somethings change in between. People die, lands get blasted, gods get laid off. A good gaming world requires a canvas that remains more stable, so as to allow players from around the globe to have a common reference with enough room to change things on their own through the results of their games. This is how I saw FR back in the nineties, a gaming world first, with all that entails, and some novels to support it. Most of those (like the Harper series, or the Spellfire) Nowadays, I am under the impression that the novels are predominant, and that epic, bigger stuff is dominant within the novels segment. WotC has come to view, I think, the gaming FR as an ancillary of the novel world. And when you've written yourself into several corners at once, well, then it's time for a reset, no? And thus 4th edition was born.  . And what a smash hit that has been.
Another point, in the rules-verus-novels debate is that the rules have become far, far more detailed, and therefore, far, far more restrictive. I have never really made the transition from 2nd edition to 3rd edition (let alone 3.5), but I have the impression that each individual character now has its own load of rules. When I picked up some novels recently (Unclean, I think), I was struck by the great amount of gaming jargon in it. There were several paragraphs dedicated to describing the main characters' class abilities (all prestige classes, I suppose), just because those classes are subject to rulesets that not every gamer may be familiar with (lots of crunch). In the days of 2nd edition, the basic rules were less restrictive: wizards memorize spells from spellbooks, and and do not cast healing spells; clerics pray for spells, do not throw fireballs, and crush people's skulls with blunt instruments, fighters are pre-packaged in metal for the dragons' enjoyment, and wield swords... You see what I mean. A Thayvian Griffonbattlesorcerer of the Order of the Scarlet Flame (Schools of Conjuration, Shadow, and Geometry) just happened to be a magic-user sitting on a griffon's back with a lot of monster summoning spells memorized, and a fancy membership card.
I am sure there was a point to this post, but I have been interrupted three times already, and I forgot all about it. |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 12 Aug 2008 : 12:41:01
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
quote:
Originally posted by slay_4_pay
If an author has to constrain himself to only doing things within the rules of the game, it could seriously hinder storytelling.
If following the rules of the game hinders storytelling, mightn't there be something wrong with the rules? After all, their purpose is to codify our collective storytelling efforts, so if their are inherently limiting to stories, they can't be performing their function correctly, can they?
Personally and for very selfish reasons, I don't want novel writers to worry too much about following D&D rules. That's largerly because I think D&D rules are overly gamist, implausible and detract from drama and storytelling.
Then again D&D was always more of a role-playing game than a role-playing system. One of the reasons GURPS and Drakar och Demoner works better for me. But as a game D&D (TSR versions) works fine.
But I risk going into more or less forbidden territory here. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 12 Aug 2008 : 01:36:57
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
If following the rules of the game hinders storytelling, mightn't there be something wrong with the rules? After all, their purpose is to codify our collective storytelling efforts, so if their are inherently limiting to stories, they can't be performing their function correctly, can they?
I think that's a really great point. |
| Icelander |
Posted - 11 Aug 2008 : 23:42:55
quote:
Originally posted by slay_4_pay
If an author has to constrain himself to only doing things within the rules of the game, it could seriously hinder storytelling.
If following the rules of the game hinders storytelling, mightn't there be something wrong with the rules? After all, their purpose is to codify our collective storytelling efforts, so if their are inherently limiting to stories, they can't be performing their function correctly, can they?
Personally and for very selfish reasons, I don't want novel writers to worry too much about following D&D rules. That's largerly because I think D&D rules are overly gamist, implausible and detract from drama and storytelling.
But that doesn't mean that I don't want novelists to follow the rules, in a larger sense. I want the setting, as it's been described, to ring true. I want magic to be capable of similar things in similar conditions as it was in other novels, or, if not, I want an explantion why. I want physics to work like in the real world unless magic or another mystical force alters them. In other words, I want a frame of reference, a way to understand the actions of the characters and have them make sense to me.
I want an imaginary garden with real toads in it, in the wise words of a fantasy writer whose name I unfortunately can't recall.
What I don't want is poor historical research disguised as veracity, i.e. novelists who haven't ever handled a sword or worn armour (or even read reputable research about it) making incorrect assumptions about how combat with such equipment would work. Armour is not so heavy that people can barely move in it (if it was, no one would have worn it), full body leather armour worthy of the name is not as comfortable as clothing (it would weight over 20 lbs., which is heavier than a decent breastplate and maybe a bit of mail) and most two-handed weapons were not used in huge scything slashes without a thought to defence.
And I don't want characters who have already displayed a capacity to break the normal rules of their universe to suddenly forget this capacity when the story needs them limited again. Yes, that means that a wizard whom we know can teleport and talk to people over distance shouldn't suddenly have to ride like the wind for two days to warn someone of danger, at least not without a plausible explanation for why he can't use his powers to circumvent the need for a long ride.
Like a good poet uses the strict constraints set by literary traditions such as haikus to spur his creativity, not limit it, a good novelist uses the established facts about the setting he writes in to enhance the veracity of his writing. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 07 Jul 2008 : 01:22:54
No worries Jamallo. 
If you have any further problems accessing certain scrolls, please let us know. |
| Jamallo Kreen |
Posted - 06 Jul 2008 : 18:35:10
TECHNICAL STUFF IRRELEVANT TO THIS LARGER SCROLL:
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
Jamallo, your "06 Jul 2008 : 00:04:54" has been registered. Could you please stop re-posting it? I've had to remove about five other posts repeating your earlier reply.
Sorry, Sage. I had a lot of trouble using the system yesterday. Instead of being directed to a timeout page I was routed to one which had nothing at all below the standard material at the top of every page, and I couldn't get the delete message function to work, either. The problem was so long-standing that Erik was able to reply to me before I even got a confirmation of the first message, and I've been unable to PM you. *sigh* The post above is the one-and-only genuine, should-be-here post. I am trying to post a separate one (or have been trying) to post an entirely separate one about Jenna's arrival as a new author, but I'm trapped on the scroll which you or Alaundo started about her "Wilderness" book. *sigh* Hopefully today will be better, with less traffic to divert my puny telephonic quill.
|
| Zanan |
Posted - 06 Jul 2008 : 18:13:28
Of course, as I said, it would be good if others bar wizards would become "movers and shakers", and I do not actually refer to fighter-types here.
BTW, speaking of "fighting wizards", clerics and similar classes can easily catch up with any fighter (well, at least in 3E they could) with a couple of spells. Speaking if somesuch, BTW II, the novels who include clerics or spellcasters caught in a fight do give a good impression why these classes can actually "get caught" here. For all their mighty and their slaying spells, they have to do it first: casting a spell or two. More often than not, the novels show that time can be of utmost importance here, something these casters regularly run out of before getting caught. Of course, it would be good to see an e.g. cleric who manages half a handful of spells and turn him-/herself into a veritable killing machine in the field of battle. |
| IngoDjan |
Posted - 06 Jul 2008 : 16:51:42
It´s obvious that the writters can´t follow every rule ov the system, even why the system changes with the time, but they should have in mind that basic rule. I won´t read a book that a aprentice mage cast wish spell that he just learn. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 06 Jul 2008 : 04:17:03
Jamallo, your "06 Jul 2008 : 00:04:54" has been registered. Could you please stop re-posting it? I've had to remove about five other posts repeating your earlier reply. |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 06 Jul 2008 : 04:10:54
And of course Mouser was a prime example of not being able to pursue all of one's interests, since, between his thievery and talent with the Cat's Claw and Scalpel, he never really seemed to have time to become more than passingly skilled in the arcane arts, but then, that was part of the character's charm too. |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 06 Jul 2008 : 03:00:38
quote:
Originally posted by Jamallo Kreen
Erik: Besides Gandalf, there's also the Grey Mouser, but I think that sword-toting wizards are a distinct minority in literature.
Let's not forget the late Robert Jordan's *OMG insane soon!* Rand al'Thor, who--aside from being basically the most powerful male wizard of his era--was pretty handy with a blade.
And all those bladesingers in the Realms.
I think it's helpful, in terms of writing, to keep in mind what characters are capable of at any given level. A 12th level character won't fight as well as a 12th level fighter if he's supposed to be a fighter-wizard, for instance, and the mechanics let us know what spells he should be able to cast, etc.
Cheers |
| Jamallo Kreen |
Posted - 06 Jul 2008 : 00:04:54
quote:
Originally posted by Lady Fellshot
Is that the one where the good guy wizard does something very mundane to defeat the evil one? *grin*
Extremely 'very mundane!"
Erik: Besides Gandalf, there's also the Grey Mouser, but I think that sword-toting wizards are a distinct minority in literature. Steven Kuntz did point out in The Complete Book of Necromancers,, however, that it is very difficult to imagine any of Clark Ashton Smith's necromancers without their scimitars; still, while that's true, they weren't terribly effective with them: the most famous "palpable hit" one of them scored was against a size Large stationary mirror, if I recall correctly.
|
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 05 Jul 2008 : 02:29:37
quote:
Originally posted by Jamallo Kreen
Not the place ... not the place....
Hear hear! I would appreciate it if we could stick to the usefulness of mechanics for novels and leave the edition-bashing to other threads.
On that note, it is noncontroversial that Steve is an excellent designer and writer. I don't think anyone here would even think about claiming otherwise--I certainly wouldn't.
quote:
Erik: I like the idea of tying fatigue in melee to CON. I may try this: a Fort save every round after (5 + CON bonus) rounds, DC equals the number of rounds of melee fought by the character or creature since the start of the encounter, with each failure adding a -1 penalty to everything.
That sounds like a reasonable mechanic, and you've got my sympathies for having your battles last *forever* if everyone starts dropping at the same rate!
quote:
"Non-Fighters should not fight!", a mantram which I have taught to many players through the decades.
Hmm, y'know, I'm not sure I agree with that mantram. I personally love it when the terrible monster with one hit point has taken down everyone in the party and is going after the 1st level wizard with the dagger . . . and it's just a matter of whether he rolls high enough or not. 
Also, the whole "wizards can't know combat" thing is so very arbitrary, and Gygax-mechanic-designed. I don't see why knowing magic should limit your martial studies one bit. Gandalf was an awesome swordsman, recall.
Doesn't mean the "wizards-can't-fight" paradigm is bad--not one bit. I'm just saying it isn't the only interpretation out there. Just in D&D settings, that's the mechanic we go by. (And one of the points of the *magic system* that should be followed, or at least there should be good reason why your sorcerer is also a swordsman.)
Cheers |
| Lady Fellshot |
Posted - 04 Jul 2008 : 22:23:39
Is that the one where the good guy wizard does something very mundane to defeat the evil one? *grin*
|
| Jamallo Kreen |
Posted - 04 Jul 2008 : 06:09:01
"Former game designer," Steven? "Former"? (Why am I suddenly developing a severe headache? Why?) Is there a correlation between your "former" status and the fact that the falsely so-called "Player's Handbook" (4.New.Coke) is now selling on Amazon for slightly more than half its cover price? -- he asked rhetorically. *sigh* Not the place ... not the place....
Erik: I like the idea of tying fatigue in melee to CON. I may try this: a Fort save every round after (5 + CON bonus) rounds, DC equals the number of rounds of melee fought by the character or creature since the start of the encounter, with each failure adding a -1 penalty to everything. This would require A LOT of bookkeeping by me, but it would hammer home a mantram which I learned from a DM, way back when George Bush was the elected President of the United States: "Non-Fighters should not fight!", a mantram which I have taught to many players through the decades. To place it in a Realmsfiction setting, I think that Pharaun, whom I have already mentioned on this scroll, is a stellar example of a non-fighter who tries to avoid fighting whenever possible, and who even has a unique dancing sword to fight for him. (Those who have seen Ralph Bakshi's Wizards may allow themselves a smile at this time.)
|
| Zanan |
Posted - 03 Jul 2008 : 08:29:24
quote:
Originally posted by Steven Schend
Steven ...
who knew Tsarra's levels when he wrote her for Blackstaff only to the extent that I knew what she couldn't do....
On the most basic level of this topic, that is the most important thing for a novel happening in a gaming world |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 02 Jul 2008 : 19:19:10
A truly valuable insight indeed, my friend!
Cheers |
| Steven Schend |
Posted - 02 Jul 2008 : 17:57:10
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Where the rules are most useful as guidelines is with the magic system. It's helpful to know what spells you know, how many you can cast, and how you prepare them, etc. While melee fighters you can fudge (many of their abilities being up to your imagination regardless), wizards and other spellcasters should be consistent in what they can do throughout a book. Magic works differently in different settings, and if you're writing a D&D-related novel, you should use the D&D magic system appropriate to the setting you're using (3/3.5e for pre-1385 Realms, 4e for post-Spellplague Realms).
(The exception is, apparently, the division between 3e/4e--and I'm sure DMs will be able to construct 4e campaigns that utilize 3.5 rules, if they want to.)
When it comes to writing, IMO, it's most important to keep up on the way magic works.
I agree, Erik, with one coda--we have to have those rules available if we're expected to adhere to them.
I've a sorcerer character in Blackstaff Tower but the rules for the 4E sorcerer were only sketchily developed at the time I was writing the novel. What's in the novel is my conception and execution of her as an arcane spellcaster working from her gut (as per the original conception of sorcerer for D&D). I do have a rough idea of her level and abilities, but people shouldn't use her as an example of exactly how sorcerers operate in this edition because the rules were not solid when she was created.
As the former traffic/continuity cop of FR and a former game designer, it is important for characters to be consistent within a certain framework and to have a general benchmark for their power. THAT is the most important crossover I can add to this discussion--if you know/believe the characters to "be roughly 4th level" (i.e. not complete novices but not "name-level" characters or major heroes), that gives you an idea of what levels of spells you should limit your character to and not let her do more than that.
Steven
who knew Tsarra's levels when he wrote her for Blackstaff only to the extent that I knew what she couldn't do....
|
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 02 Jul 2008 : 15:12:19
quote:
Originally posted by Jamallo Kreen
In a nutshell: divide "health points" by three and then whittle them off, a layer at a time, with each lost layer impeding all activities, with cumulative penalties to all dice rolls.
I've played in a game like that myself, which had bloodied (half hit points, -2 penalties to attack and AC), extremely injured (quarter hit points, -4 penalties to attack and AC), and grievously injured (tenth hit points, basically staggered).
'Twas a good mechanic for making game battles more realistic (though contradictory to my view of hit points, see above--I don't look at hit points as a measure of how many times you can be stabbed. I look at it was a measure of how many times you have to be stabbed AT before a mortal thrust).
Sadly, while I found it a better approximation of the fatigue that settles as battle passes, it wasn't terribly fun for the players at my table, so we didn't stick with it long.
Doesn't mean it can't work--if it works for you, it works for you!
quote:
In novel after novel the hero takes large amounts of damage, but even on his or her "last legs," manages to strike a killing blow which someone in real life would have been too tired or too blood-drained to accomplish. It would be preferable, I think, to have fights in novels wind down to the They Live/"cripple fight" stage of exhaustion of the combatants, with fancy-schmancy combat feats extremely difficult to manage after a dozen rounds or so of hacking and slashing (or kicking and punching).
Totally agree!
In my experience, though, that makes for good cinema/literature and problems at the gaming table. Unless the players are really into the grim and gritty, of course--and some really are.
This is another mechanic that is missing from the game, but shouldn't be absent a novel, IMO. People get tired/fatigued after long periods of battle. Also, people in the game can heft their way through long fights in the heaviest armors, and people in light leathers get no fatigue-related benefits. Remember the classic fight in A Game of Thrones between the heavily armed/armored knight and the lightly clad scoundrel.
At the same time, if people get extremely tired and start suffering attack penalties in the game, then it can really, REALLY drag out a tabletop combat (which are, often, extremely quick things that don't give people much of a chance to get tired).
I have a house rule to reflect fatigue and carelessness that works like this: when the battle has passed a number of rounds per the DM's discretion (depending on environment, armor, etc.), everyone engaged in a long combat starts suffering a cumulative -1 per round to AC (you can also do a +1 to attack rolls, to reflect this same thing--not because it's more realistic, but because it's often easier to keep track of). As you fight on, your defense/technique starts to fall apart and you descend into hack-and-slash mode, and the risks get higher that you'll falter and suffer a mortal injury.
Not that this is terribly realistic (people should grow weary and careless at different rates, for instance), but it wraps up combats in a tabletop game faster, particularly when people can't seem to hit each other normally.
What would be better--if you're up to keeping track of the numbers--is to penalize ACs of creatures who grow fatigued as battle passes. Maybe they have a number of rounds equal to 5+constitution modifier, after which they start suffering -1's to AC. Or they inherit the fatigued status, then eventually exhausted. Or something.
And finally, getting back to the OP, this is one area in which novels can shine, but it's up to the individual discretion of the writer, as there aren't any inbuild mechanics for it. Thus, while writers can do battle fatigue, there aren't any *universal D&D rules* to handle it, so it's up to them how it takes place.
Cheers |
| Faraer |
Posted - 02 Jul 2008 : 13:13:25
A workable rule of thumb is for a character's last hit points equal to their Con score to represent serious physical injury, much as in the pre-Saga Edition Star Wars Roleplaying Game's Wound Points/Vitality Points system.
Usually in these discussions people overestimate the gap in these respects between prose fiction and RPG play. |
| Jamallo Kreen |
Posted - 02 Jul 2008 : 04:47:59
Apropos of massive damage accumulation, I am trying to get my players to agree to use the Health rules from the Fantasy Flight Games Darkness & Dread book. In a nutshell: divide "health points" by three and then whittle them off, a layer at a time, with each lost layer impeding all activities, with cumulative penalties to all dice rolls. That, I think, is a better approximation of real combat. It's not the first arrow which kills you, it's the last, but every arrow before the last wounds you.
In novel after novel the hero takes large amounts of damage, but even on his or her "last legs," manages to strike a killing blow which someone in real life would have been too tired or too blood-drained to accomplish. It would be preferable, I think, to have fights in novels wind down to the They Live/"cripple fight" stage of exhaustion of the combatants, with fancy-schmancy combat feats extremely difficult to manage after a dozen rounds or so of hacking and slashing (or kicking and punching). Lest anyone think that would be an unheroic downer, I refer you to the fight between Mordred and Arthur at the end of John Boorman's Excalibur; that's no overhand coup de gras!
|
| Jamallo Kreen |
Posted - 02 Jul 2008 : 04:18:06
quote:
Originally posted by Zanan
(snip)
There are nonetheless a few things with regards to the rules that irk a gamer from time to time, like clerics being able to “chant a prayer” of exactly the spell they need … sorcerer-like. And they are not all favored souls, of course. A clever player utilizes the rule to leave spell slots open but “readied”, so they can decide on the spot which spell they need and pray for that spell for 15 minutes – yes, that (core) rules exists gamers! If an author puts that into the novel too, the clerics would be nigh perfect.
(snip)
That possibility has existed since AD&D (please don't make me think back to OD&D, -- I'm too tired! -- but I suspect it was there, too). A cleric or wizard need only keep some spell slots open and then pray for or study the desired spell when a need arises. I haven't read the Lady Penitent books, but just finished the War of the Spider Queen sextet, and at the level those people were (all) at, it would probably be prudent to leave some slots open for those moments when the "You can just die, then!" spells aren't appropriate. If the only thing of which you can be certain is that changing conditions will certainly confront you, it would be foolish to not have some flexibility available to you.
Now that I am thinking about War, I recall that one thing which annoyed me in almost all of the books was the way that game mechanics were being invoked by the characters, especially Pharaun. He was constantly obliged to say that he hadn't memorized some spell or other that one of the damned priestesses demanded; I found that very irritating. Just once I would have liked him to say that he could not cast a spell and then cast it the next day so that he would have the opportunity to talk back to whichever priestess proceeded to complain that he had lied the day before.
In my own campaign, I took a leaf from Paul S. Kemp's books and had a mid-level priest of Mask haggle with the player characters during a battle before he would agree to pray for a daylight spell which was desperately needed to be destroy a spell-carrying darkenbeast. Flamestrike, raise dead, cure wounds, all were okay by him, but asking for a light-descriptor spell was, he thought, going beyond the pale. Fortunately for them, it was almost midnight, and they had (barely) enough time to wait for the prayer. (Mask did collect his fee, in case anyone was wondering.)
|
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 02 Jul 2008 : 02:34:45
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
So the long and short of it is, if the 4e mechanics put you off, that attitude shouldn't necessarily apply to the 4e FR novel line. (And vice versa, of course.) The only way you're going to decide if you like the post-Spellplague Realms novels is by reading them.
It's not the mechanics of 4E that make me not want to read post-Sellplague novels -- it's that I can't stand the Sellplague itself.
Quite. That's a good articulation of my point about separating the 4e mechanics and the 4e FR lore--which was what I was addressing. If you've got beefs with the realmslore, then *of course* you're looking at issues with the setting novels.
That said, you can certainly dislike the realmslore and love aspects of the novels. I myself have really enjoyed a few novels whose lore aspects I didn't care for (naming no names!--it's all a matter of opinion). Your realms is your realms--always has been, always will be.
It wasn't my intention to take us into a 4e FR discussion--the thread's still about use of game mechanics in the novels!
quote:
Originally posted by Ozzalum
So I generally agree with the consensus that is better to try to incorporate game mechanics as they relate to magic and generally ignore the melee rules.
Now I never said that! All I claimed was that one should try to emulate *real-life battle*, which is (not coincidentally) what the game attempts to do. I think of hit points more as a matter of fatigue--you taking damage is softening you up for the big blow.
Not that, of course . . .
quote:
If you looked at the character sheet for a high level character after a big battle and counted up the number of sword hits and arrows sticking out of them...
. . . not that you can't play it that way, too, if that's what works for you!
quote:
But what about spells that deal direct damage? A magic missile and a dagger do about the same damage ...
snip
Magic missile is actually the exception to my thinking, but here we go:
A blow that kills a target is a killing thrust--a hit to the heart, eye, whatever. You wouldn't describe 3 damage to a 50 hp fighter (the marine from your example, say) as a thrust to a vital area--it's a scratch. Having the 50 hps (and being around 5-6th level, which is probably a good estimation for a tough, experienced marine) means that the character is good at making sure that when you try to stab him, he keeps it from being a lethal strike. The more hit points they have, the less likely you are to land a finishing blow. Exceptions can, of course, happen--he can be critted for, say, 10 damage, and it's a serious cut (but not life-threatening). A sneak attack that does 50+ damage or a triple 20 roll is a kill-shot. A series of small stabs and a final one that reduces him below 0 hp is a series of small stabs that culminates in a final lethal blow.
The lower your hit points, the more likely someone is to land that solid strike that drops you.
Many spells can hit criticals as well (and those triple-crits [20-20-hit] that do instant kill, if you play with that rule, or the critical failure saving throws that make the fireballs do double damage--Erik=cruel DM*) . . . except instant/auto-hit/no-save spells like magic missile. They do a limited amount of damage, so I guess there's no way they can really kill a high level character--unless he's been softened up.
And that's pretty much how warriors are in real life. Unless you get really lucky, it's unlikely you're going to take someone out with one weak dagger thrust--he's probably going to turn it aside and maybe get a small scratch. In game terms, that could be 8 damage, but he has 50 hit points. Against a 1st level commoner, who doesn't have the defensive abilities, that same strike would be lethal.
So a single magic missile probably can't more than sting the marine, unless he drops his guard (because he's low on hit points) and it drops him.
Does that make sense?
Anyway, that's just how I make the parallel. Hit points are a huge abstraction anyway, and just a game mechanic to fuel the combat.
Cheers
* P.S. For anyone interested, the way that works in my games is so:
If you roll a critical failure on a saving throw (a natural 1), then that's a critical threat. You roll another save (discounting evasion or whatever)--if you succeed, then the strike from the spell does normal damage. If you fail this save as well, you take double damage. A second nat-1 requires a third save, which--if failed--spells instant-death for the character (like the triple threat rule for critical hits).
A DM might allow a caster with the Improved Critical (ranged spells) feat to score a critical threat if you roll a natural 2 as well, but like a nat-19 as opposed to a nat-20, this isn't an automatic hit (your save of 2 might succeed).
Apropos writing, it's always made sense to me that spells should have just as much chance of hitting you particularly hard as melee/ranged attacks (excepting magic missile, which has no rolls in 3e). A character shouldn't be more afraid of an incoming scimitar (which could strike a deathblow) than a low-level wizard's lightning bolt (which you know has a maximum damage it could deal)--a reader shouldn't say: oh, Drizzt can get hit by at least two lightning bolts, but those swords, watch out!
IMO, the 4e mechanic is something of an improvment on this system, in that it by default (i.e., without a house rule) allows you to score criticals with spells just like with basic attacks.
|
| Hawkins |
Posted - 01 Jul 2008 : 22:14:49
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
So the long and short of it is, if the 4e mechanics put you off, that attitude shouldn't necessarily apply to the 4e FR novel line. (And vice versa, of course.) The only way you're going to decide if you like the post-Spellplague Realms novels is by reading them.
Cheers
It's not the mechanics of 4E that make me not want to read post-Sellplague novels -- it's that I can't stand the Sellplague itself.
Me too. In the novels I am fairly indifferent to how the mechanics are implemented. I began as a fan of the novels (and therefore the world and the lore) first and it was only recently (I think six years ago) that I got into playing D&D (for a number of reasons that I will not go into here). Well, I can stand the concept of the Spellplague, but not as the excuse that the designers used it as to radically carve up the face of Toril with (to remove the things they did not like is my best guess). There was little logic, as it was explained by Rich and by Chris P., applied in what they decided to keep and what not to. For example, Halruaa is one of the most "Realmsian" nations that I know of, and it was just wiped off the face of the planet. Maztica, while poorly designed, could have been a great place if they had taken the time to "Realmsify" it. I am afraid to see what the new map of the 4e Realms looks like, because I am not sure that I will recognize it.
Anyway, my dislike for the 4e Realms only stems from the "how" and "why" it was implemented in the lore, not at all from the 4e mechanics (even though I don't plan to use them). |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 01 Jul 2008 : 21:45:54
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
So the long and short of it is, if the 4e mechanics put you off, that attitude shouldn't necessarily apply to the 4e FR novel line. (And vice versa, of course.) The only way you're going to decide if you like the post-Spellplague Realms novels is by reading them.
Cheers
It's not the mechanics of 4E that make me not want to read post-Sellplague novels -- it's that I can't stand the Sellplague itself. |
| Ozzalum |
Posted - 01 Jul 2008 : 21:33:29
So I generally agree with the consensus that is better to try to incorporate game mechanics as they relate to magic and generally ignore the melee rules. If you looked at the character sheet for a high level character after a big battle and counted up the number of sword hits and arrows sticking out of them...
But what about spells that deal direct damage? A magic missile and a dagger do about the same damage but I know that in real life I could be killed or at least seriously injured by a dagger in the chest. I also know that a guy much tougher than me, say a Marine in his prime, is in about the same danger that I, a skinny geek, am if he is stabbed in the chest. Ok, fine. But what about the magic missile? I'm a low level character, I'll admit it, and I figure one or two magic missiles would kill me. What about the Marine? Is the magic missile as lethal to him as the dagger or does magic scale differently than we know weapons do in real life?
I bring this up because I have found in the novels that I never know whether any given spell is actually going to kill the person who is targeted. You know how it is generally obvious when Drizzt runs some foe through the chest that the next line is either going to describe some spasming death or the foe's death will simply be assumed. But when someone gets hit with a lightning bolt, who knows what's going to happen. Some authors seem to go with the game mechanics and others say "He got hit by a lightning bolt, so he's dead." |
| Zanan |
Posted - 01 Jul 2008 : 20:38:05
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Good advice, Zanan!
quote:
Originally posted by Zanan
What is more of a concern lately is the fact that FR authors essentially write lore and thus rules as well.
I hope I don't take your comment out of context--but it bears noting that WotC works quite closely with authors who are handling Realms stories. If a canonical character is going to get the chop, or a fallen Netherese city is going to rise into the sky, you better believe it's been supervised and signed off by the editorial board. They scrutinize stand-alone novels (what I've written thus far) in detail, so you can only imagine how closely they watch trilogies, particularly RSEs.
I'm not saying we authors don't or shouldn't write lore--I'm just saying that all the responsibility doesn't fall on an individual writer or editor. It may *look* as though that writer is solely responsible for the new realmslore, but the Realms has always (and will always be) a team effort.
About that there is no doubt. And you did indeed ... nay, let's say I was not specific enough. There is no doubt that in the LP series there was a clear outcome given to Lisa with regards which deity shall survive and which shall not. Still, e.g. the whole story of the erasion of Kiaransalee's name (and nothing more) and thus her existence from in-setting Realmslore onwards is unattested in the rules so far and thus, we get new lore. Lore that tells us that if another sneaky wizard* gets powerful enough and a "hang of it", he can (spoiler->) erase the name of any drow deity (in this case, as the drow are all linked via faerzress - some new lore as well) from the roster. This beckons in turn the question why Q'arlynd did not attempt to do the full monty and erase Lolth's name first from the roster ... or *attempt it between then and his current status? I mean, he had access to those with the knowledge and power, he simply needed the willing subjects. And there was, of course, ample supply about. Well, now he's cut off from faerzress, of course.
Coming back to Kiaransalee and the Acropolis, Lisa gave us a picture of the her main temple of Faerûn - with the leader of the faith, her second in command (as given in Demihuman Deities as well as City of the Spider Queen) and any members of her crusader nowhere about. Yet, the island's priestess were described as half-mad hags walking about with rancid fat on their shaven skulls. That is re-writing lore and/or creating new one. ... again, sorry for picking up Lisa's novels here, but as they are of direct concern to me, I know them and the lore that goes before and with them best. In turn though, she gives us the first detailed description of the Pit of Ghaunadaur below The Promenade in LP III. Many an Eilistraeen craved about that, (spoiler ->) even though it becomes essentially useless for players of the 4E Realms. Speaking of Eilistraee ... unless I am mistaken, FR lore so far clearly stated that deities could not enter the Realms "in person", only via avatars. In LP III, this has been changed. In Unclean, Szass Tam summon the spirit of a deity, Bane no less, and speaks and bullies him about like a major demon or the like, but not a deity. Pretty disturbing a picture painted there if mortals can behave like that in front of a major deity, one of the most feared in the Realms. (And it does not really matter if that person is Szass Tam, Elminster or a hedgemage, the "moral damage" has been done amongst those gamers who happen to read that novel. Rest assured, their next 4E superheroes will want to have a go at some minor deity ... for starters.)
Now please, don't get this wrong here. I have really enjoyed reading the novels mentioned, as much as I enjoyed reading the lore going before it. All I am asking for is a conscience for the greater effects of some novel actions, as they will be considered canon. I'm not saying that this conscience has not been there or is missing entirely, far from it. But some events in recent novels have come very close to turning various (stone-cast) rules and accompanying lore upside down - though that could very well be initiated and accepted by the Wizards. It would be a grave injustice to the novels and their authors to simply criticise them for this and that change, for they are great books and I'd love to read more of them. Unfortunately, 4E and all that goes with it will - as it looks - change the Realms to something I am not exactly looking forward to. |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 01 Jul 2008 : 15:22:21
Good advice, Zanan!
quote:
Originally posted by Zanan
What is more of a concern lately is the fact that FR authors essentially write lore and thus rules as well.
I hope I don't take your comment out of context--but it bears noting that WotC works quite closely with authors who are handling Realms stories. If a canonical character is going to get the chop, or a fallen Netherese city is going to rise into the sky, you better believe it's been supervised and signed off by the editorial board. They scrutinize stand-alone novels (what I've written thus far) in detail, so you can only imagine how closely they watch trilogies, particularly RSEs.
I'm not saying we authors don't or shouldn't write lore--I'm just saying that all the responsibility doesn't fall on an individual writer or editor. It may *look* as though that writer is solely responsible for the new realmslore, but the Realms has always (and will always be) a team effort.
quote:
Now … there is much more to be said, but since all the new novels will focus on the 4E Realms with game mechanics I kindly decline to accept or take on board, I’ll won’t go on about that.
I rather prefer the novels to focus on the realmslore, not the mechanics. As I mentioned before, RAS pretty much writes a 1e drow ranger--and his books have always been dead-on to the Realms, regardless of which edition is in vogue. What you should consider before reading FR novels of any edition is whether you like the flavor/lore of the world, not the mechanics of the game.
So the long and short of it is, if the 4e mechanics put you off, that attitude shouldn't necessarily apply to the 4e FR novel line. (And vice versa, of course.) The only way you're going to decide if you like the post-Spellplague Realms novels is by reading them.
Cheers |
|
|
