| Author |
 Topic  |
|
slay_4_pay
Seeker
65 Posts |
 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.
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jun 2008 : 03:08:44
|
I depends on what "game rules" you are talking about. I agree that assuming a warrior would need to be hit twenty or thirty times before he dies isn't in keeping with a good story, but at the same time, since the fiction is driven in part by its association with game rules, those rules shouldn't be ignored wholesale either.
I also agree that a character in a novel doesn't know their stats, their level, their skill ranks, and have only a vague notion about things like feats or alignment. On the other hand, a cleric knows if he has the dedication of skill in channeling his god's power that allows him to raise the dead, and a character that is clearly a young apprentice mage shouldn't be able to crack open his master's spellbook and cast a wish spell.
I think in many cases its fairly common sense what should be presented as an "in world" item as opposed to something that clearly exists as a rules structure for the game. Heck, while I think that you should have an idea of how powerful a character is (i.e. if they could do various extraordinary things the game allows for), I also don't think that "in reality" things work just like in the game.
|
 |
|
|
Jamallo Kreen
Master of Realmslore
USA
1537 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jun 2008 : 03:47:49
|
I can't abide those characters who can -- miraculously -- throw a sword and critically impale their opponents. I own swords. Many of them. Throwing a sword is (a) difficult and (b) ineffectual more than 90% of the time. They are not missile weapons. They are hand- (or tentacle-) held melee weapons. They are weighted so that the force of the hand's grip on the hilt counterbalances the inertial force of the blade's mass in conjunction with the mass of the pommel (if any). If you release your grip the sword may do any of several things depending on how it's balanced. One thing it will almost certainly not do is level itself so that it is parallel to the ground if thrown sidearmed, nor will it flip end over end for more than a couple or three revolutions before it falls to the ground, probably breaking unless it was forged from both high carbon and mild steel (like a "samurai sword" or a Damascus blade), and if that's the case, it's too valuable to be in the hands (or other grasping appendages) of the average adventurer. Considering that about half the battles in which I have read of this "tactic" being used were either underground or indoors, the odds against the sword not crashing into the ceiling or a wall before hitting the ground are astronomical. There's a reason that many katanas and European swords had throwing daggers in their scabbards: the swords simply could not be thrown to any good effect. Gods! Even if the blade broke it was more useful as a hilt with a partial blade than it was a floor decoration.
|
I have a mouth, but I am in a library and must not scream.
Feed the poor and stroke your ego, too: http://www.freerice.com/index.php.
|
|
|
|
BARDOBARBAROS
Senior Scribe
Greece
581 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jun 2008 : 15:33:34
|
| I agree with you but there are some basic rules which the authors must respect and follow.. For example an author cannot add abilities and feats in known characters such as Drizzt which he do not possess in the core books e.t.c |
BARDOBARBAROS DOES NOT KILL.
HE DECAPITATES!!!
"The city changes, but the fools within it remain always the same" (Edwin Odesseiron- Baldur's gate 2) |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jun 2008 : 16:46:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by BARDOBARBAROS
I agree with you but there are some basic rules which the authors must respect and follow.. For example an author cannot add abilities and feats in known characters such as Drizzt which he do not possess in the core books e.t.c
I actually can't agree with this. Most novel characters are conceived of specifically for novels, and very rarely does the author create game stats for the characters. Statted novel characters are almost always done by a separate person, trying to make the character fit the existing ruleset -- not the other way around. That's part of the reason that even within the same edition, any given character can sometimes wind up with wildly varying stats.
Novel characters aren't created to conform to the rules. In novels, it's about plot, not game rules that are going to be changing in a couple of years.
One of the biggest differences between game mechanics and novels is the simple dagger thrust. In the game, only low-level characters or NPCs need to fear a dagger. In novels, however, even the most powerful character can be killed by a single, well-placed dagger. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3737 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jun 2008 : 17:58:29
|
| -There are two schools of thought, here: An author should have the artistic license to add flourishes to his/her literature as he/she chooses, but at the same time, the author is writing in someone else's sandbox, so to speak, and as such, should abide by the rules that exist there. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerûn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerûn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jun 2008 : 18:45:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dagnirion
-There are two schools of thought, here: An author should have the artistic license to add flourishes to his/her literature as he/she chooses, but at the same time, the author is writing in someone else's sandbox, so to speak, and as such, should abide by the rules that exist there.
But the rules keep changing! Even within a single edition, there are often later rules additions that make more sense for a character than what was possible under an earlier set of the rules.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I'd be okay with a knight in full plate suddenly tossing off a barrage of spells. But I am saying I'm not going to sweat it if he pulls off a maneuver that is generally only possible with another purely martial class.
In other words, stick to the rules as a guideline, but not as a straitjacket. The character concept and the plot are far more important than sticking with something that's going to be invalid in two years' time. The rules of the setting -- which include non-mechanical elements such as flavor, theme, and continuity -- should never take a back seat to the rules of the game. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 28 Jun 2008 18:47:39 |
|
|
|
Lady Fellshot
Senior Scribe
USA
379 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jun 2008 : 21:43:15
|
What I find irritating is not so much not following the game rules as not setting limits on characters. A character that seems to be able to do everything with no trouble is, quite frankly, boring to me. Or even if they can do one thing, like magic or sword work, seemingly without limits, I get tired of hearing about those things about those characters.
I do strongly believe that when writing in a shared universe, research should be done to at least see where and how one can play with what came before. Just because there are clear limits defining something does not make it impossible to tweak it a bit while still keeping the same feel of it. |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jun 2008 : 22:46:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lady Fellshot
What I find irritating is not so much not following the game rules as not setting limits on characters. A character that seems to be able to do everything with no trouble is, quite frankly, boring to me. Or even if they can do one thing, like magic or sword work, seemingly without limits, I get tired of hearing about those things about those characters.
I'd like to quote this for truth. I usually only mind "breaking the rules" when it's done to make life really easy for the protagonist--easier than it probably should be.
I don't have too much else to say that hasn't been said in this thread already. Even though novels don't have to adhere to the rules to closely, the author should do their best to keep to the internal logical of the setting. As KEJR said before, an novice mage cannot learn and cast spells that only experienced spellcasters can use (like Wish). That's something that probably wouldn't change in new editions of the rules, either. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
|
|
Sanishiver
Senior Scribe
USA
476 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jun 2008 : 01:10:40
|
I’ve seen people whine incessantly about novel characters not follow game mechanics, just as I’ve seen people complain that novels are too dry and boring when characters do follow the current edition’s mechanics (criticism of Rich Baker’s Last Mythal Trilogy comes to mind).
Can’t win, can’t loose.
No pen and paper D&D game edition will ever have the ability to render up a super-real game environment, so there’s no good reason to expect novel characters to conform to a limited game rules system.
It’s up to the author to make believable fantasy characters that connect with his target audience. A good author (like Salvatore) should be versed in the various editions of the game so that he can sprinkle in a few bits here and there that relate to the game, but that’s all that should ever be expected from them.
|
09/20/2008: Tiger Army at the Catalyst in Santa Cruz. You wouldn’t believe how many females rode it out in the pit. Santa Cruz women are all of them beautiful. Now I know to add tough to that description.
6/27/2008: WALL-E is about the best damn movie Pixar has ever made. It had my heart racing and had me rooting for the good guy.
9/9/2006: Dave Mathews Band was off the hook at the Shoreline Amphitheater.
Never, ever read the game books too literally, or make such assumptions that what is omitted cannot be. Bad DM form, that.
And no matter how compelling a picture string theory paints, if it does not accurately describe our universe, it will be no more relevant than an elaborate game of Dungeons and Dragons. --paragraph 1, chapter 9, The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene |
|
|
|
Lady Fellshot
Senior Scribe
USA
379 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jun 2008 : 05:11:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
I’ve seen people whine incessantly about novel characters not follow game mechanics, just as I’ve seen people complain that novels are too dry and boring when characters do follow the current edition’s mechanics (criticism of Rich Baker’s Last Mythal Trilogy comes to mind).
Well, there is a huge difference between character and plot development (my favorite part of any novel) and following game/world mechanics exactly. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. In fact, I think that they should be good friends to anyone creating a story. But it still has to make sense within the narrative.
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
No pen and paper D&D game edition will ever have the ability to render up a super-real game environment, so there’s no good reason to expect novel characters to conform to a limited game rules system.
It’s up to the author to make believable fantasy characters that connect with his target audience.
And this makes them any different from the person who plays their character for 10 years, keeping a detailed journal of everything that happens during the game sessions, how? I would say that character is probably as well or better developed than any number of other characters who have their misadventures published in novels. There are simply a different set of restrictions placed on a publishing author that they have to work around, in addition to any imposed by the narrative universe.
|
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3737 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jun 2008 : 05:43:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Dagnirion
-There are two schools of thought, here: An author should have the artistic license to add flourishes to his/her literature as he/she chooses, but at the same time, the author is writing in someone else's sandbox, so to speak, and as such, should abide by the rules that exist there.
But the rules keep changing! Even within a single edition, there are often later rules additions that make more sense for a character than what was possible under an earlier set of the rules.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I'd be okay with a knight in full plate suddenly tossing off a barrage of spells. But I am saying I'm not going to sweat it if he pulls off a maneuver that is generally only possible with another purely martial class.
In other words, stick to the rules as a guideline, but not as a straitjacket. The character concept and the plot are far more important than sticking with something that's going to be invalid in two years' time. The rules of the setting -- which include non-mechanical elements such as flavor, theme, and continuity -- should never take a back seat to the rules of the game.
-You stick to the rules that exist at the time you are writing. Those are the rules that "govern the universe". |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerûn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerûn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jun 2008 : 07:08:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dagnirion
-You stick to the rules that exist at the time you are writing. Those are the rules that "govern the universe".
That does not work in all cases. Especially if it is anything other than a stand alone novel. With all the rule changes you could easily end up contradicting information you gave in another novel.
I don't think gamerules should ever be a factor of importance in a novel, although "setting" rules is a different story. But as they keep changing them to, this could get as ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Jamallo Kreen
Master of Realmslore
USA
1537 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jun 2008 : 07:30:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lady Fellshot
What I find irritating is not so much not following the game rules as not setting limits on characters. A character that seems to be able to do everything with no trouble is, quite frankly, boring to me. Or even if they can do one thing, like magic or sword work, seemingly without limits, I get tired of hearing about those things about those characters.
I do strongly believe that when writing in a shared universe, research should be done to at least see where and how one can play with what came before. Just because there are clear limits defining something does not make it impossible to tweak it a bit while still keeping the same feel of it.
The old Hall of Heroes and Heroes Lorebook (title?) provided stats on A LOT of the most celebrated (or infamous) NPCs of the Realms, and some of them were multi- (or dual-)classed.
What I like about having both books is that those who were still being written of had grown between volumes (i.e. they had gone up levels). One of my favorites (in this sense) was Cyric, who was a thief-fighter (in that order). Between the first and the second his fighter levels increased to reflect his work as a mercenary and his efforts to put his old life behind him. (Then along came those Tablets of Fate.... *sigh*) It's interesting to compare Cyric's stats with those of Bane, who has, I think sixty-five character class levels; it's easy to see why Cyric is such a piss-poor god, given what he has to work with. Compare them with the main protagonist of your choice from recent novels.
I recently read a series in which, as things unfolded, it became apparent that every important spellcasting character was able to cast 9th level spells. Admittedly this was to be expected of some of the casters -- they are genuinely important people -- but some characters were just caught up in the flow of events and impressed into the party. What are the odds that they were all over 16th level, even the slave (!) of one character? The books were so written that it was obvious what spells were being cast, what skills and feats used, etc. Not only was there no mystery, but it was possible to figure out everyone's class levels by the end, and there's no way that people with those class levels would have all wound up in the situations they were in.
|
I have a mouth, but I am in a library and must not scream.
Feed the poor and stroke your ego, too: http://www.freerice.com/index.php.
|
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3737 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jun 2008 : 15:43:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
[brThat does not work in all cases. Especially if it is anything other than a stand alone novel. With all the rule changes you could easily end up contradicting information you gave in another novel.
I don't think gamerules should ever be a factor of importance in a novel, although "setting" rules is a different story. But as they keep changing them to, this could get as ridiculous.
-That can, and does happen. But, that's what happens when Dungeons and Dragons is the medium to "your" setting. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerûn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerûn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jun 2008 : 14:14:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
I’ve seen people whine incessantly about novel characters not follow game mechanics, just as I’ve seen people complain that novels are too dry and boring when characters do follow the current edition’s mechanics (criticism of Rich Baker’s Last Mythal Trilogy comes to mind).
Not that I want to go off on a tangent topic, but I don't recall that most of the criticism of the aforementioned trilogy had to do with it following 3E rules too closely. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jun 2008 : 16:53:26
|
If you don't mind me weighing in on this . . .
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. It doesn't make sense for your "wizard-apprentice" hero to start throwing around fireballs heedlessly, for instance. It's also helpful when dealing with characters who have multiple special abilities (like slippery mind, shadowdancing and divine perseverence) to have a sense of how powerful they'd have to be to have those abilities (around 15-17th level, actually)--which means that you're writing a high-level character, even if you didn't mean to.
When it comes to mechanics and writing, you can (and should) fudge simple martial combat. It's only with 4e that we're starting to see pervasive game mechanics to reflect individual "moves" and "techniques" in combat--sure, you had feats in 3/3.5e to give you special attacks, which can be described as they are in the book, but the core mechanic for most martial characters was "swing-and-a-miss" or "swing-and-a-hit." It was up to the players and DMs to fill in the description of how a character attacks/parries, what the killing strike looks like, the scramble to attack, even if it's just a mental exercise (some game groups do this visualization out loud, some in their heads, some not at all) . . . and that's what a novel does by default, on the page.
You wouldn't describe warrior as "swing-and-miss, swing-and-hit, etc," because it's unrealistic. Real warriors don't fight that way--if you do the same boring thing over and over, you'll be killed before you do it the third time. And the game was never meant to be understood simplistically like that--every one of your attacks varies, even if it's just an "attack." If you hit with some and not with others, well, then the successful attacks were more cunning or just better techniques. The game is built to emulate "real fantasy combat" ("real" vs. "fantasy" being something of an oxymoron), and that's what a good fantasy novel does as well.
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).
I say 3/3.5e for pre-Spellplague, mostly because the 3/3.5e system is meant to be applied to Realms history in a back-fill sort of style. It's like the difference between Netherese arcanist magic (in the Netheril sourcebook) and 2e magic--everything works just a bit differently between the two editions. Also, 2e magic and 3e magic feel roughly the same (at least to me), so you don't have to open up another edition to do historical games.
(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.)
quote:
Originally posted by BARDOBARBAROS
I agree with you but there are some basic rules which the authors must respect and follow.. For example an author cannot add abilities and feats in known characters such as Drizzt which he do not possess in the core books e.t.c
Well, that gets a little dicey, since characters change in the core books. Drizzt was originally built as a 1st edition drow ranger, and those are the abilities that Bob writes with to this day.
And, as I said earlier about writing martial combat, I don't see anything the matter with that--Drizzt's character builds are just a way of understanding him according to the rules of each edition, i.e., how to integrate him into your games.
When it comes to writing, IMO, it's most important to keep up on the way magic works.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jun 2008 : 17:03:25
|
| That was quite insightful, thanks Erik. |
Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated January 06, 2016)
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back. --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
"Mmm, not the darkness," Myrin murmured. "Don't cast it there." --Erik Scott de Bie, Shadowbane
* My character sheets (PFRPG, 3.5, and AE versions; not viewable in Internet Explorer)
* Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document (PFRPG OGL Rules)
* The Hypertext d20 SRD (3.5 OGL Rules)
* 3.5 D&D Archives
My game design work:
* Heroes of the Jade Oath (PFRPG, conversion; Rite Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 1: Cantrips & Orisons (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 2: 1st-Level Spells (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Martial Arts Guidebook (forthcoming) (PFRPG, designer; Rite Publishing)
|
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jun 2008 : 18:18:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
You wouldn't describe warrior as "swing-and-miss, swing-and-hit, etc," because it's unrealistic. Real warriors don't fight that way--if you do the same boring thing over and over, you'll be killed before you do it the third time.
It'd also be pretty boring to read about, too. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jun 2008 : 20:20:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
You wouldn't describe warrior as "swing-and-miss, swing-and-hit, etc," because it's unrealistic. Real warriors don't fight that way--if you do the same boring thing over and over, you'll be killed before you do it the third time.
It'd also be pretty boring to read about, too.
Amen, sister! 
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Jamallo Kreen
Master of Realmslore
USA
1537 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jul 2008 : 07:43:38
|
Thank you for the insights, Erik.
|
I have a mouth, but I am in a library and must not scream.
Feed the poor and stroke your ego, too: http://www.freerice.com/index.php.
|
|
|
|
Zanan
Senior Scribe
Germany
942 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jul 2008 : 12:13:05
|
Well ... I’ve read my fair share of FR novels in recent years and most if not all the authors got the game mechanics right. Which is a big change to years gone bye. It is quite obvious that some parts of the game cannot be reproduced in a novel context, as Erik intimated, and should not be translated either. It is rather the other way round, game mechanics often don’t give you a real combat feel, e.g. a critical hit that cuts your HP in half could mean a punctured lung, a chopped-off arm and the like. There ain’t no rules for that and for the sake of playability you usually stop short of somesuch at the table.
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.
What is more of a concern lately is the fact that FR authors essentially write lore and thus rules as well. This is as much a challenge as it is a burden. For you need … nay should have a good understanding of both rules and existing lore as well. Lisa has become a victim of much flak because of the lore (now made canon) created in the Lady Penitent series. We are – lets be honest about it – a pretty fickle bunch when it comes to adding and changing existing lore or ret-conning it. Lisa has added an enormous amount of information to the lore – and as it looks delved deep into existing stuff – yet because of the Spellplague changes handed out by the Wizards was left with the difficult task of killing off a number of deities. That required monumental spells and actions – something which probably would have been delt with in a dozen ways by a dozen authors. And all would get their fair share of criticism about it from us.
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.
There are a few things I would like the Wizards and the authors keep a favourable eye on in the future:
Do not design an FRCS and after a couple of years have nigh all the people in there dead and gone. There’s hardly a handful of all the described NPCs of the 3E’s FRCS around now.
Authors, if you invent characters, especially those of trilogies and the like, make sure that some of them survive – in whatever way. And that refers to both, the villains and the good’doers or heroes. Send them to a different plane to fight their way back if need be, maim them and have them stay in exile for the healing period or something alike. Or let, for a change, have the evil chaps win the day. If I have all the novel “heroes” dead at the end, the chance of reading of a series for a second or third time goes down dramatically. In a way, it is like knowing that the Realms I have come to love will be gone in a year or two …
In any case, keep up the good work, especially Lisa!
|
Cave quid dicis, quando et cui!
Gæð a wyrd swa hio scel!
In memory of Alura Durshavin.
Visit my "Homepage" to find A Guide to the Drow NPCs of Faerûn, Drow and non-Drow PrC and much more. |
Edited by - Zanan on 01 Jul 2008 12:37:55 |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jul 2008 : 13:43:02
|
| By the time an author has got the hang of how the Realms works, they're going to have figured out which rules are decent approximations to that (especially, as Erik says, the magic system) and which are passing mechanical artefacts. |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
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 |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Zanan
Senior Scribe
Germany
942 Posts |
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. |
Cave quid dicis, quando et cui!
Gæð a wyrd swa hio scel!
In memory of Alura Durshavin.
Visit my "Homepage" to find A Guide to the Drow NPCs of Faerûn, Drow and non-Drow PrC and much more. |
Edited by - Zanan on 02 Jul 2008 09:17:07 |
|
|
|
Ozzalum
Learned Scribe
USA
277 Posts |
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." |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
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. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
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). |
Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated January 06, 2016)
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back. --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
"Mmm, not the darkness," Myrin murmured. "Don't cast it there." --Erik Scott de Bie, Shadowbane
* My character sheets (PFRPG, 3.5, and AE versions; not viewable in Internet Explorer)
* Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document (PFRPG OGL Rules)
* The Hypertext d20 SRD (3.5 OGL Rules)
* 3.5 D&D Archives
My game design work:
* Heroes of the Jade Oath (PFRPG, conversion; Rite Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 1: Cantrips & Orisons (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 2: 1st-Level Spells (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Martial Arts Guidebook (forthcoming) (PFRPG, designer; Rite Publishing)
|
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
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.
|
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
Edited by - Erik Scott de Bie on 02 Jul 2008 15:23:50 |
|
|
|
Jamallo Kreen
Master of Realmslore
USA
1537 Posts |
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.)
|
I have a mouth, but I am in a library and must not scream.
Feed the poor and stroke your ego, too: http://www.freerice.com/index.php.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Novels and game mechanics
