| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
 Posted - 16 Sep 2013 : 19:00:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Seravin
The Tuigan horde invasion is how you do a RSE. Two very good and one 'okay' novel, the events happen, involve some key players, are dealt with, discussed afterwards in future novels; and we the fans move on with the Realms very much just as we remembered it but with the lore embellished/enriched by the RSE rather than destroyed by it.
Just my opinion.
I can agree with this.  |
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!  |
 |
|
|
The Arcanamach
Master of Realmslore
1842 Posts |
Posted - 16 Sep 2013 : 19:21:24
|
quote:
The Tuigan horde invasion is how you do a RSE. Two very good and one 'okay' novel, the events happen, involve some key players, are dealt with, discussed afterwards in future novels; and we the fans move on with the Realms very much just as we remembered it but with the lore embellished/enriched by the RSE rather than destroyed by it.
Here here good fellow I second/triple/quadruple this motion.  |
I have a dream that one day, all game worlds will exist as one. |
|
|
|
Firestorm
Senior Scribe
Canada
826 Posts |
Posted - 17 Sep 2013 : 01:07:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Seravin
The Tuigan horde invasion is how you do a RSE. Two very good and one 'okay' novel, the events happen, involve some key players, are dealt with, discussed afterwards in future novels; and we the fans move on with the Realms very much just as we remembered it but with the lore embellished/enriched by the RSE rather than destroyed by it.
Just my opinion.
Hell yes.
You have my vote here |
|
|
|
Drustan Dwnhaedan
Learned Scribe
USA
324 Posts |
Posted - 17 Sep 2013 : 06:39:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Firestorm
quote:
Originally posted by Seravin
The Tuigan horde invasion is how you do a RSE. Two very good and one 'okay' novel, the events happen, involve some key players, are dealt with, discussed afterwards in future novels; and we the fans move on with the Realms very much just as we remembered it but with the lore embellished/enriched by the RSE rather than destroyed by it.
Just my opinion.
Hell yes.
You have my vote here
You've got my vote, too. |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 17 Sep 2013 : 07:33:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by JamesLowder
It's important to remember that Bob's books are part of the Realms, so any fans of those novels are Realms fans. True Realms fans.
Well said. 
Being a fan of the Realms is not predicated on anything other than a willingness to enjoy the setting, however it is one does that.
There is no one right way--or best way--to enjoy the Realms.
I can appreciate the frustration some people feel towards their fellow fans, and I've seen efforts by scribes to answer lore questions and put to rest some of the bigger/more common misperceptions about the Realms that crop up on other forums, but I think sometimes it's better to just let fans be fans and leave them to the belief that their favorite heroes are unstoppable. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 17 Sep 2013 07:34:19 |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 17 Sep 2013 : 10:00:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Seravin
[...] with the lore embellished/enriched by the RSE rather than destroyed by it [...]
Idd. Events that makes the setting poorer should never see the light of the day, IMO. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 18 Sep 2014 : 16:33:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
Idd. Events that makes the setting poorer should never see the light of the day, IMO.
First I'll say, for those who might be inclined to skip anything I say, I'm trying to be constructive. I acknowledge that I've done my fair share of edition-bashing already. This isn't intended to be more of that, but rather pointing at something specific which I believe could be done better.
The Time of Troubles and the Spellplague exemplify Irennan's statement, for me. They both destroyed pieces of the setting, and I don't think either of them should have been published. But they would have been fine as individual campaigns. One DM maps it out and presents it, several players or even several groups of players suffer through it and hopefully everyone has fun and becomes more adept at whatever aspects of the game and imagination are important to them. And I think that's probably close to how these events took shape... someone had an idea and mapped it out, and maybe some players played through it. Unfortunately for us, this someone had the power and lack of foresight to publish it, and it became canon.
Any of us might make the same mistake. Every DM has had at least one idea which we thought was brilliant, but which at some point turned out to be terrible, or at least a few of our players stopped showing up for a few days/weeks. If we'd been the CEO of WotC, and eager to shake things up in the Realms, we might have decided to publish it instead of playtesting it. Or we might have ignored the negative feedback. Or we might have intimidated the players into keeping their gosh-durned negativity to themselves. And the result, had we pushed our ridiculous fever-dream through to publication, would probably have been similar to the fecal hurricane that arose from some DMs and players following the release of the 4e Campaign Guide.
This sarrukh campaign that I'm trying to put together is one example. I go way beyond the devastation of the 4e changes. I put an end to 95% of the civilizations on the surface of Faerun, from Waterdeep to Semphar and from Nimbral to the Moonsea. Among the nations of Faerun, Waterdeep and Evermeet and Mulhorand barely survive, and beyond that pretty much everything falls. I don't blow up the landmass itself (like Halruaa in 4e), but I might move/raise/lower some mountain ranges. And I cover most of the continent with a steaming jungle, and fill it with reptiles. And I advance the timeline 10+ times as much as the Spellplague did.
If this was published as the canon Realms? *snort*
Yet this campaign works, even for lovers of the Realms. Putting aside questions of my DMing skill, I feel confident about Ed and his players reading my campaign. Because it's just one campaign, from just one fan, and because this campaign is just one possible future among infinite futures. And because when this campaign is done, it can be done, and the world goes back to "normal" in the next campaign.
No matter how crazy our individual campaigns get, they work because they're not canon. And the TOT and the Spellplague could have enjoyed much more popular acceptance if they were given to us as optional campaign arcs.
They weren't, and canon will continue to go off in utterly bizarre directions in the future, because that's apparently how it works. There has to be a future. (I disagree, but that's hardly relevant.) Much like "sex sells" in other types of movies and publications, it seems that WotC believes "drama sells" with regard to campaign settings. Certainly the settings which lack strong central storylines filled with explosions (Mystara, Spelljammer, Ravenloft, Al-Qadim, and others) have been dropped, and the Realms is being turned into a series of kabooms. It's been happening since the Time of Troubles, and not just happening but escalating.
So we're going to have crazy things happening. RSEs. And not just the little ones that everyone is fine with or at least finds a way to deal with... they will get ever-bigger, ever-worse. This should be expected, no matter what anyone seems to say to the contrary.
I hope, though, that this one piece of wisdom can lodge in the minds of the Powers That Be, and everyone who will get promoted to positions of Power when the Powers inevitably cause massive losses of revenue and goodwill through foreseeably stupid decisions: make it optional. It just might save your career.
quote:
Originally posted by Seravin
The Tuigan horde invasion is how you do a RSE. Two very good and one 'okay' novel, the events happen, involve some key players, are dealt with, discussed afterwards in future novels; and we the fans move on with the Realms very much just as we remembered it but with the lore embellished/enriched by the RSE rather than destroyed by it.
The TOT should have been presented as a smorgasbord rather than a train track. Which gods do you want removed from your campaign? Okay, here's a campaign into which you can plug your choices, and guidelines on the aftermath which you can insert into your campaigns at relevant points. Just an example of why I agree with Seravin, and with Irennan, but exceptions can still be workable if they're presented as campaign options rather than continually reinforced unalterable facts which fray the setting rather than strengthen it.
(Several edits for clarity) |
Edited by - xaeyruudh on 18 Sep 2014 16:45:04 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 18 Sep 2014 : 16:45:29
|
It is my opinion that the Time of Troubles did not detract from the setting at all. I liked what happened and the way it played out, and I liked the way it had a long-term impact on the setting.
I am actually unhappy about the return of Bhaal and the potential return to godhood of Myrkul. Bhaal struck me as the evil-for-evil's-sake type, and Myrkul came across as the "ooh, death is SCAAAARRRYYY!" type, which is painfully cliched. Plus, I think Myrkul has a lot more potential as an intelligent, troublemaking artifact, as opposed to just another evil deity in a crowded roster of them. |
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! |
|
|
|
CorellonsDevout
Great Reader
USA
2708 Posts |
Posted - 18 Sep 2014 : 16:53:35
|
| I agree with you Wooly about Myrkul. I much preferred Kelemvor as the god of death. I think the death portfolio should have a nuetral deity. Most souls are going to be picked up by one god or another, anyway. I see little reason for an evil god of death. |
Sweet water and light laughter |
|
|
|
Eilserus
Master of Realmslore
USA
1446 Posts |
Posted - 18 Sep 2014 : 17:04:22
|
| I wouldn't remove the artifact from play at all. In fact, I could see him still using that as a way to avoid the rules the deities have to follow. A loop hole he intends to exploit. |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 18 Sep 2014 : 17:20:40
|
I won't disagree with Myrkul being interesting/useful as an artifact rather than just another evil deity. I also prefer a neutral god of death and will leave the artifact in play if/when Myrkul returns to godhood.
But surely you can see that your opinion on the TOT is shaped by your dislike of Bhaal and Myrkul. Personally, I like Leira and I hate Cyric. There were other problems.
The timing was wrong... the FR setting had only recently been published, and nothing substantial had been written about the gods or their personalities. However, someone already wanted to get rid of four gods --three of which I think were original creations by Ed, rather than borrowed from other pantheons-- and replace them with a psycho who would grow to offset the entire pantheon. This detracts from the setting by removing original elements before even allowing their potential to be explored.
By offsetting I mean on one side of the scales you have Cyric and on the other you have the rest of the pantheon. Obviously this is just my perception, but it wasn't Cyric's imagination... it really was him versus everyone, and it was his own fault, and everything about Cyric is ridiculous. (Most egregiously ridiculous is allowing him to succeed at killing Mystra, but that's probably been covered somewhere.) This balance issue detracted from the setting by requiring additional writing to "settle" the issue. It's one thing to add a new character which generates a lot of interest and creates room for additional novels... that's awesome. It's something else to disrupt things to such an extent that you need to go on talking about it in order to make things work properly.
And something else really bothered me about the TOT. Even as a novice writer I was flabbergasted and disgusted by Leira being retconned out of the pantheon by a plotline that was predicated entirely on getting rid of her (without killing Leira, Cyric cannot become the Prince of Lies) but didn't even mention her. It's like writing a whole trilogy of novels leading up to someone executing a coup in Cormyr, without ever mentioning the previous monarch. After the trilogy is published, you make a press statement: "oh yea, and he killed the king." What, exactly, is that? It's definitely not a good story, because it's missing a key player. Bane's portfolio was nominally relevant since Cyric basically become the new god of tyranny for a while. Bhaal and Myrkul were only there for the extra oomph needed to make Cyric a superpower rather than a mere greater power. But Leira? She was the core of the entire storyline, and she wasn't... even... there. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 18 Sep 2014 : 17:50:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eilserus
I wouldn't remove the artifact from play at all. In fact, I could see him still using that as a way to avoid the rules the deities have to follow. A loop hole he intends to exploit.
He can't be an intelligent artifact and a deity at the same time. |
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! |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 18 Sep 2014 : 18:00:04
|
Perhaps he can't be both at the same time, but he wouldn't need to be. The artifact could serve as a conduit through which he can exert power over whoever touches the object and perhaps other individuals in the vicinity.
It's kindasorta serving as a phylactery right now. Not a huge tweak to allow him to continue possessing the artifact if he's restored to godhood. |
Edited by - xaeyruudh on 18 Sep 2014 18:00:45 |
|
|
|
Eilserus
Master of Realmslore
USA
1446 Posts |
Posted - 18 Sep 2014 : 18:04:47
|
| I was thinking some of his essence would still remain in the artifact. Maybe like an avatar, just not bound by the avatar rules. Might not fly with Ao though and just a thought off the top of my head. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 18 Sep 2014 : 18:08:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
I won't disagree with Myrkul being interesting/useful as an artifact rather than just another evil deity. I also prefer a neutral god of death and will leave the artifact in play if/when Myrkul returns to godhood.
But surely you can see that your opinion on the TOT is shaped by your dislike of Bhaal and Myrkul. Personally, I like Leira and I hate Cyric. There were other problems.
Actually, I hate Cyric, more than Bhaal or Myrkul as a deity. That doesn't have any bearing on liking the overall changes to the setting.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
The timing was wrong... the FR setting had only recently been published, and nothing substantial had been written about the gods or their personalities. However, someone already wanted to get rid of four gods --three of which I think were original creations by Ed, rather than borrowed from other pantheons-- and replace them with a psycho who would grow to offset the entire pantheon. This detracts from the setting by removing original elements before even allowing their potential to be explored.
It wasn't about getting rid of deities at all. The point of the event was to have an in-game explanation for changing the rules. Two deities were a necessary casualty of this (no assassins means a god of assassins is superfluous, etc), and two more were sacrificed for the point of the story.
And in place of those deities, we had a new deity, with the same potential to be explored -- if not more potential, since he was a lot more active than most of those he replaced.
Not only that, but it's hard to say potential had been removed when you also say that there was practically nothing written about them, in the first place. With little material there, it's not much more than a substitution. We went from someone with little material to someone with more material. I don't see how that is detracting...
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
By offsetting I mean on one side of the scales you have Cyric and on the other you have the rest of the pantheon. Obviously this is just my perception, but it wasn't Cyric's imagination... it really was him versus everyone, and it was his own fault, and everything about Cyric is ridiculous. (Most egregiously ridiculous is allowing him to succeed at killing Mystra, but that's probably been covered somewhere.) This balance issue detracted from the setting by requiring additional writing to "settle" the issue. It's one thing to add a new character which generates a lot of interest and creates room for additional novels... that's awesome. It's something else to disrupt things to such an extent that you need to go on talking about it in order to make things work properly.
Just because Cyric thought everyone was against him, it doesn't make it true, and it doesn't mean the balance was upset.
Really, I think that creating and then shoving the Shar/Mystra conflict to the forefront had a lot more of an unbalancing effect. Ditto for the way the Chosen were shoved to the forefront.
And yes, Cyric did kill Mystra. That's not a side-effect of the ToT. That was the designers using an available tool. If not Cyric, they prolly would have used Shar -- especially since 3E was practically ALL SHAR, ALL THE TIME!
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
And something else really bothered me about the TOT. Even as a novice writer I was flabbergasted and disgusted by Leira being retconned out of the pantheon by a plotline that was predicated entirely on getting rid of her (without killing Leira, Cyric cannot become the Prince of Lies) but didn't even mention her. It's like writing a whole trilogy of novels leading up to someone executing a coup in Cormyr, without ever mentioning the previous monarch. After the trilogy is published, you make a press statement: "oh yea, and he killed the king." What, exactly, is that? It's definitely not a good story, because it's missing a key player. Bane's portfolio was nominally relevant since Cyric basically become the new god of tyranny for a while. Bhaal and Myrkul were only there for the extra oomph needed to make Cyric a superpower rather than a mere greater power. But Leira? She was the core of the entire storyline, and she wasn't... even... there.
What? The plotline had nothing to do with her, and her removal was not a retcon. We knew she disappeared during the ToT, and we later found out that -- after the ToT was ended -- Cyric and Mask hunted her down and killed her.
She wasn't in the ToT story because she wasn't even peripherally involved in the main story. She certainly was not the core of it. |
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 18 Sep 2014 18:14:51 |
|
|
|
ZeshinX
Learned Scribe
Canada
210 Posts |
Posted - 18 Sep 2014 : 19:05:47
|
| I always liked Myrkul. Not as the god of the dead, I much prefer Kelemvor in that role, but I did like the lore surrounding Myrkul. The ToT happened in my campaign, but I ended up bringing Myrkul back. I had him replace Velsharoon by subsuming him when Velsharoon came into possession of the Crown of Horns. He then visited Rashemen and re-absorbed the power he placed in the Spirit-Eater (from the NWN2 Mask of the Betrayer expansion) and used it to destroy the last vestige of Velsharoon's personality. |
"...because despite the best advice of those who know what they are talking about, other people insist on doing the most massively stupid things."
-Galen, technomage |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 18 Sep 2014 : 20:05:43
|
My point on the TOT is just that when you're designing an event which will be canon and will have broad and far-reaching consequences for many players --ie, this affects every single campaign in the Realms-- it's smart to leave as many doors open as possible for the DM, and it's not-smart to close as many of them as possible. In the TOT, doors were shut which definitely did not need to be shut.
If the TOT had been written as a campaign option, nothing would have been lost. You could still get rid of Bhaal and Myrkul, and keep Bane, and as a bonus you wouldn't have to lose Leira and Ibrandul and I don't remember who else, and you wouldn't have to gain Cyric, and you wouldn't have to transition from Mystra to Midnight. If you want Cyric and you prefer Midnight over Mystra, that's fine, they could be available. Other replacements could be available too.
I'm saying the TOT could have been a product line of a dozen adventures and a sourcebook on designing deities and pantheons for Realms campaigns. That book does not already exist... we can look at Earth's mythology for cues, but that's a pretty weird view based on many cultural slants. TSR/WotC could have published a book on how to write/balance deities/pantheons, and some percentage of us would have bought it because there's at least one god in the pantheon that each of us would like to tweak or replace. Some of that might appear in the various sourcebooks on gods that they have published, but my impression was that they were basically just descriptions of the gods and some snippets about the pantheons. I'm suggesting more of a how-to or DIY book. It could have sold well among GMs of other game systems too. There would also be room for a book detailing the Dawn Cataclysm, and each deity's arrival/creation and history in the Realms. By leaving the door open for who returns to the outer planes after the TOT, they would have made more money and failed nobody.
I'm left with the feeling that the whole purpose of the TOT was to introduce Cyric and make him unalterably a part of the Realms... additions to Realmslore which might attempt to make up for the losses came primarily from Ed's adventure trilogy. We got some insight into Midnight and Kelemvor in the novels, but that was never built upon in subsequent published lore, because apparently only Cyric was deemed important. Someone just wanted to add their psychobaby to the pantheon, pulled rank and/or threw as many tantrums as necessary to get their way, and left Ed to make the best of it.
So for the last 25 years, we've been stuck with the TOT. Sure, we can write it out of our own individual campaigns, if we have the time to come up with what the churches of the affected gods have been doing since 1358 (and before that too since there wasn't much written about them at all) but I'm guessing that for the overwhelming majority of us the TOT has resulted in a loss of potential Realmslore. This loss was totally unnecessary and avoidable.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
That doesn't have any bearing on liking the overall changes to the setting.
What overall changes did the TOT bring beyond the removal of some gods and addition of Cyric? Part of the TOT's failure imo was the lack of foreshadowing and follow-through. Sure, we had the removal of the churches of Bhaal, Leira, and Myrkul --which weren't really there to begin with because they hadn't been written yet-- and the addition of Cyric's church. But beyond this, the only change in the setting was a bunch of NPCs with assassin levels dropping dead... which turned out to be stupid when assassins were added back in.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
It wasn't about getting rid of deities at all. The point of the event was to have an in-game explanation for changing the rules. Two deities were a necessary casualty of this (no assassins means a god of assassins is superfluous, etc), and two more were sacrificed for the point of the story.
I didn't mean to say that removing deities was the point of the TOT. I meant to say that adding Cyric was the point of the TOT, and removing several other gods was a "necessary" consequence of that, and I'll stand by that.
There is no way to justify the TOT using rules changes. It just doesn't work. The assassin class could have been removed without killing off all the assassins in the world... they just lose some of the abilities they had before, and revert to rogues. Happens to paladins every day. We now have kits and nonweapon proficiencies? Fine, you're rewriting all the stat blocks anyway. If changes in the rules required killing NPCs, every single NPC in the world would have been killed with each ruleset, because every single stat block needed to be rewritten each time. Changes in the rules have never required changes in the setting, and they never will.
Also, removing the assassin class does not remove assassins from the game and it doesn't make a god of assassins useless. There's no blacksmith class, but obviously blacksmiths exist.
I won't argue with the other gods being "sacrificed for the point of the story" because we're not disagreeing there. We're just looking at it from different angles. I'm saying the story was written in order to bring Cyric into the pantheon, and the portfolio that was given to him demanded getting rid of Leira and Bhaal. Bane and Myrkul were unnecessary casualties, regardless of our individual judgments of those deities.
And I'm not condemning unnecessary casualties; I'm saying (overall anyway) that which gods bite the dust in any given DM's Realms as a result of this event coulda shoulda been left up to that DM.
This probably would have removed the novels from the picture, but if the point of the TOT was selling novels then it wasn't about explaining the rules changes. If the novels came about to explain the story, then that money would have been better spent improving the presentation of the story and creating more adventures and sourcebooks surrounding it... the novels department has hundreds of realms across Faerun, several unexplored continents, and at least 30,000 years of history to explore. New rulesets are written to sell core rulebooks. Changes to the settings are written to force us to also buy new setting material. The novels department will never need a rules change to generate sales.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And in place of those deities, we had a new deity, with the same potential to be explored -- if not more potential, since he was a lot more active than most of those he replaced.
Not only that, but it's hard to say potential had been removed when you also say that there was practically nothing written about them, in the first place. With little material there, it's not much more than a substitution. We went from someone with little material to someone with more material. I don't see how that is detracting...
How do you know how active the churches of Bane, Bhaal, Myrkul, and Leira were prior to the TOT? They were never written about.
It's a loss of potential lore because now there's no room to write about the church of Myrkul (for example) after 1358... or between 1358 and 1490, or whatever it turns out to be. Well, there might be a small sect somewhere that survives but the church is no longer what it could have been if the TOT had gone differently. Those who liked Myrkul better than Kelemvor (it doesn't matter how many people we're talking about) are irrelevant to WotC. Those who liked Bane were irrelevant until Bane was brought back... which came off like backpedaling and ended up highlighting the weakness of the TOT. The stories that could have been told about 1358-1490, the Lords of Darkness entries and Current Clack entries and adventure plot hooks that could have been written about those churches, were shut down before they started, and that is a point against the TOT-as-written rather than in favor of it.
And in this particular case, it is not true that these losses were unavoidable.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And yes, Cyric did kill Mystra. That's not a side-effect of the ToT. That was the designers using an available tool. If not Cyric, they prolly would have used Shar
I didn't mean to call it a side effect of the TOT, beyond Cyric and his hatred of Mystra being introduced by the TOT. I have no doubt that without the TOT the Spellplague would have happened anyway, due to the aforementioned need for kabooms. I suspect the 4e changes might have been somewhat smaller, or the author of the Spellplague might have sought more feedback before going through with it, if our tacit acceptance of the TOT hadn't set the precedent that it did, but we'll probably never know.
Cyric was defined (in my mind, from reading the novels) as a nutzo. Hateful, but less and less dangerous over time due to being effectively paralyzed by the cacophony of his inner voices. His church was dangerous, but Cyric himself was increasingly looney. Maybe I read it wrong, but in my Realms nothing ever goes according to plan for him. He has millions of ideas about how and when and where to kill Mystra (and every other god) and frame others for it or just laugh at everyone because Ao gave him carte blanche to do whatever his portfolio dictates... which happens to include doing outrageous and destructive things just to stir up the other gods (intrigue).
But at the end of the day, Cyric is too wacko to actually see anything through to completion. Too many voices, and not enough mental bandwidth. Like I said, that's just my take. Maybe I'm alone. But that's why the "explanation" of the Spellplague doesn't hold water. It couldn't even hold rocks.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
What? The plotline had nothing to do with her, and her removal was not a retcon. We knew she disappeared during the ToT, and we later found out that -- after the ToT was ended -- Cyric and Mask hunted her down and killed her.
She wasn't in the ToT story because she wasn't even peripherally involved in the main story. She certainly was not the core of it.
3e campaign setting. Cyric's portfolio is Murder, lies, intrigue, deception, and illusion. Without Leira he would be missing four of the five. If his portfolio were just murder, and assuming we gave him assassins as well as just murder, he would be equivalent to Bhaal's 1e strength... a demigod, hardly in a position to run roughshod over the rest of the pantheon. That would make a pretty laughable villain, so daddy/mommy had to give psychobaby more power.
It would have been very possible to write the TOT without Cyric being so Cyric. He could have been part of the party, like Kelemvor. They didn't even know where Cyric was for most of the story. It would make more sense, given their backgrounds, for Cyric to be part of the group and Kelemvor to be the one we rarely saw. Cyric was the villain of the trilogy, and that was by design. Cyric was mapped out, to a much greater extent than Kelemvor or Adon, before the trilogy was written.
Cyric (the mortal) can't fully metamorphose into Cyric (the god) without Leira. She's 80% of his portfolio. And since Cyric is the heart of the TOT, Leira is the real heart of the story.
It seems weird (for lack of a more precise word) for the central story in a long saga to never get printed. Did I miss a story somewhere about Leira's death, maybe buried in an anthology somewhere? It would still be sad for it to not have a novel of its own, but at least there could be something. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 18 Sep 2014 : 22:11:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
My point on the TOT is just that when you're designing an event which will be canon and will have broad and far-reaching consequences for many players --ie, this affects every single campaign in the Realms-- it's smart to leave as many doors open as possible for the DM, and it's not-smart to close as many of them as possible. In the TOT, doors were shut which definitely did not need to be shut.
Other than removing a couple of deities, I don't see that doors were shut. And with new deities, the followers of fallen deities, changes to magic, and the lesser effects of the ToT, I think it created a lot more doors than we had closed by not having a couple deities.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
If the TOT had been written as a campaign option, nothing would have been lost. You could still get rid of Bhaal and Myrkul, and keep Bane, and as a bonus you wouldn't have to lose Leira and Ibrandul and I don't remember who else, and you wouldn't have to gain Cyric, and you wouldn't have to transition from Mystra to Midnight. If you want Cyric and you prefer Midnight over Mystra, that's fine, they could be available. Other replacements could be available too.
You could say similar things about every single change that's ever been made in the Realms. But if it's all optional, then nothing is changing in the setting. And if nothing is changing, you're not selling anything.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
I'm saying the TOT could have been a product line of a dozen adventures and a sourcebook on designing deities and pantheons for Realms campaigns. That book does not already exist... we can look at Earth's mythology for cues, but that's a pretty weird view based on many cultural slants. TSR/WotC could have published a book on how to write/balance deities/pantheons, and some percentage of us would have bought it because there's at least one god in the pantheon that each of us would like to tweak or replace. Some of that might appear in the various sourcebooks on gods that they have published, but my impression was that they were basically just descriptions of the gods and some snippets about the pantheons. I'm suggesting more of a how-to or DIY book. It could have sold well among GMs of other game systems too. There would also be room for a book detailing the Dawn Cataclysm, and each deity's arrival/creation and history in the Realms. By leaving the door open for who returns to the outer planes after the TOT, they would have made more money and failed nobody.
Except they would have failed everyone who wanted to see -- or enjoyed seeing -- things change in the setting.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
I'm left with the feeling that the whole purpose of the TOT was to introduce Cyric and make him unalterably a part of the Realms... additions to Realmslore which might attempt to make up for the losses came primarily from Ed's adventure trilogy. We got some insight into Midnight and Kelemvor in the novels, but that was never built upon in subsequent published lore, because apparently only Cyric was deemed important. Someone just wanted to add their psychobaby to the pantheon, pulled rank and/or threw as many tantrums as necessary to get their way, and left Ed to make the best of it.
No, the entire point of the ToT was to provide an in-game explanation for the changes caused by changing from 1E to 2E. This has been stated many times in the past; it is the official statement from TSR. You may not like it, you may disagree with its necessity, but it is what TSR chose to do.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
So for the last 25 years, we've been stuck with the TOT. Sure, we can write it out of our own individual campaigns, if we have the time to come up with what the churches of the affected gods have been doing since 1358 (and before that too since there wasn't much written about them at all) but I'm guessing that for the overwhelming majority of us the TOT has resulted in a loss of potential Realmslore. This loss was totally unnecessary and avoidable.
The overwhelming majority of us lost absolutely nothing, because this event happened far enough back that most of us were not Realms fans when it happened.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
That doesn't have any bearing on liking the overall changes to the setting.
What overall changes did the TOT bring beyond the removal of some gods and addition of Cyric? Part of the TOT's failure imo was the lack of foreshadowing and follow-through. Sure, we had the removal of the churches of Bhaal, Leira, and Myrkul --which weren't really there to begin with because they hadn't been written yet-- and the addition of Cyric's church. But beyond this, the only change in the setting was a bunch of NPCs with assassin levels dropping dead... which turned out to be stupid when assassins were added back in.
So if Bhaal, Leira, and Myrkul "weren't really there", then why complain about their removal?
The overall changes of the ToT included removing those (and other) deities. It introduced dead and wild magic areas. It caused a bunch of other, minor changes, too. Overall, though, it was a major event that shook things up, affected the entire setting, had lasting effects, and moved the timeline forward.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
It wasn't about getting rid of deities at all. The point of the event was to have an in-game explanation for changing the rules. Two deities were a necessary casualty of this (no assassins means a god of assassins is superfluous, etc), and two more were sacrificed for the point of the story.
I didn't mean to say that removing deities was the point of the TOT. I meant to say that adding Cyric was the point of the TOT, and removing several other gods was a "necessary" consequence of that, and I'll stand by that.
You can stand by it, but the company that made those changes says you are wrong. And when a company says something about their motivations with their IP, I tend to believe them.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
There is no way to justify the TOT using rules changes. It just doesn't work. The assassin class could have been removed without killing off all the assassins in the world... they just lose some of the abilities they had before, and revert to rogues. Happens to paladins every day. We now have kits and nonweapon proficiencies? Fine, you're rewriting all the stat blocks anyway. If changes in the rules required killing NPCs, every single NPC in the world would have been killed with each ruleset, because every single stat block needed to be rewritten each time. Changes in the rules have never required changes in the setting, and they never will.
Actually, I think using a major event that shakes up the heavens themselves is the perfect way to explain a rules change. The Time of Troubles served quite admirably as an in-setting catalyst for the changes to rules.
Without something affecting the gods, how would you explain every single member of a particular class losing all of their special abilities?
And when there is something wholly new in the rules, especially something that was not possible before, how do you implement this in the setting without changing things? And/or if something that previously worked one way now works another way, how can this be explained without changes?
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
Also, removing the assassin class does not remove assassins from the game and it doesn't make a god of assassins useless. There's no blacksmith class, but obviously blacksmiths exist.
Assassin was a separate, playable class in 1E, and it was not a playable class in 2E. You can't say the same about blacksmiths; they were never a class.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
I won't argue with the other gods being "sacrificed for the point of the story" because we're not disagreeing there. We're just looking at it from different angles. I'm saying the story was written in order to bring Cyric into the pantheon, and the portfolio that was given to him demanded getting rid of Leira and Bhaal. Bane and Myrkul were unnecessary casualties, regardless of our individual judgments of those deities.
Again, TSR said that the point of the Time of Troubles was to explain changes to the setting. You may disagree with that, but doing so is calling everyone at TSR a liar.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
And I'm not condemning unnecessary casualties; I'm saying (overall anyway) that which gods bite the dust in any given DM's Realms as a result of this event coulda shoulda been left up to that DM.
How could TSR have sold anything that was built around "yeah, so everything in this product may or may not have happened in the setting?" How could they have sold any future products, when they didn't have a definite baseline for what had changed before?
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
This probably would have removed the novels from the picture, but if the point of the TOT was selling novels then it wasn't about explaining the rules changes. If the novels came about to explain the story, then that money would have been better spent improving the presentation of the story and creating more adventures and sourcebooks surrounding it... the novels department has hundreds of realms across Faerun, several unexplored continents, and at least 30,000 years of history to explore. New rulesets are written to sell core rulebooks. Changes to the settings are written to force us to also buy new setting material. The novels department will never need a rules change to generate sales.
Changes to the settings are NOT written to force us to buy new setting material. They are made to advance the timeline, and/or accommodate changes to the rules, and/or to sell novels.
The company makes the bulk of its money from the rules, not from the settings.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
How do you know how active the churches of Bane, Bhaal, Myrkul, and Leira were prior to the TOT? They were never written about.
So why is it such a big issue? Ibrandul was never written about before his demise; ditto for Murdane or Valigan Thirdborn. I don't see anyone complaining about any of them.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
It's a loss of potential lore because now there's no room to write about the church of Myrkul (for example) after 1358... or between 1358 and 1490, or whatever it turns out to be. Well, there might be a small sect somewhere that survives but the church is no longer what it could have been if the TOT had gone differently. Those who liked Myrkul better than Kelemvor (it doesn't matter how many people we're talking about) are irrelevant to WotC. Those who liked Bane were irrelevant until Bane was brought back... which came off like backpedaling and ended up highlighting the weakness of the TOT. The stories that could have been told about 1358-1490, the Lords of Darkness entries and Current Clack entries and adventure plot hooks that could have been written about those churches, were shut down before they started, and that is a point against the TOT-as-written rather than in favor of it.
The stories that could have been told were replaced with others -- others that had more material to support them.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And yes, Cyric did kill Mystra. That's not a side-effect of the ToT. That was the designers using an available tool. If not Cyric, they prolly would have used Shar
I didn't mean to call it a side effect of the TOT, beyond Cyric and his hatred of Mystra being introduced by the TOT. I have no doubt that without the TOT the Spellplague would have happened anyway, due to the aforementioned need for kabooms. I suspect the 4e changes might have been somewhat smaller, or the author of the Spellplague might have sought more feedback before going through with it, if our tacit acceptance of the TOT hadn't set the precedent that it did, but we'll probably never know.
I don't think any amount of feedback would have influenced the Spellplague. They were not listening to fans of the Realms when they did that.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
Cyric was defined (in my mind, from reading the novels) as a nutzo. Hateful, but less and less dangerous over time due to being effectively paralyzed by the cacophony of his inner voices. His church was dangerous, but Cyric himself was increasingly looney. Maybe I read it wrong, but in my Realms nothing ever goes according to plan for him. He has millions of ideas about how and when and where to kill Mystra (and every other god) and frame others for it or just laugh at everyone because Ao gave him carte blanche to do whatever his portfolio dictates... which happens to include doing outrageous and destructive things just to stir up the other gods (intrigue).
Ao gave all deities carte blanche to act within their portfolio.
Otherwise, I agree. Cyric is not only crazy, he's pathetic and one-dimensional. That doesn't mean that his plots, whether crazy or cunning, can't be used for role-playing potential.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
But at the end of the day, Cyric is too wacko to actually see anything through to completion. Too many voices, and not enough mental bandwidth. Like I said, that's just my take. Maybe I'm alone. But that's why the "explanation" of the Spellplague doesn't hold water. It couldn't even hold rocks.
Okay, I'm utterly confused, now... How did we go from whether or not there was a purpose for the Time of Troubles to one for the Spellplague?
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
What? The plotline had nothing to do with her, and her removal was not a retcon. We knew she disappeared during the ToT, and we later found out that -- after the ToT was ended -- Cyric and Mask hunted her down and killed her.
She wasn't in the ToT story because she wasn't even peripherally involved in the main story. She certainly was not the core of it.
3e campaign setting. Cyric's portfolio is Murder, lies, intrigue, deception, and illusion. Without Leira he would be missing four of the five. If his portfolio were just murder, and assuming we gave him assassins as well as just murder, he would be equivalent to Bhaal's 1e strength... a demigod, hardly in a position to run roughshod over the rest of the pantheon. That would make a pretty laughable villain, so daddy/mommy had to give psychobaby more power.
Still not seeing where the complaint is... The Time of Troubles was created to usher in the changes of 2E. There was a lot that happened after that, before 3E was introduced. And it was in that time period that Cyric and Mask hunted down and slew Leira, and in that time period that we found out about this.
Leira's demise was only connected to the ToT in that it happened at the hands of Cyric. It is otherwise utterly unrelated.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
It would have been very possible to write the TOT without Cyric being so Cyric. He could have been part of the party, like Kelemvor. They didn't even know where Cyric was for most of the story. It would make more sense, given their backgrounds, for Cyric to be part of the group and Kelemvor to be the one we rarely saw. Cyric was the villain of the trilogy, and that was by design. Cyric was mapped out, to a much greater extent than Kelemvor or Adon, before the trilogy was written.
So it was planned that he would be a villain... Where is the problem?
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
Cyric (the mortal) can't fully metamorphose into Cyric (the god) without Leira. She's 80% of his portfolio. And since Cyric is the heart of the TOT, Leira is the real heart of the story.
Incorrect. Cyric became a deity without anything happening to Leira. And Cyric was more about strife, which he stole from Bane -- he showed this in Crucible. And it's a stretch to say that lies and deception are 80% of his portfolio -- he got most of his strength from Murder, Death (until he lost it), and Strife. Lies and deception were just the icing on the cake; they certainly were not the entire cake.
Since Cyric became a deity without Leira's portfolios, since he pursued his other portfolios a lot more vigorously, and since she wasn't slain until after the Time of Troubles was over and done with, Leira is not the heart of the story. She's not even the spleen of the story; at best, she's the appendix.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
It seems weird (for lack of a more precise word) for the central story in a long saga to never get printed. Did I miss a story somewhere about Leira's death, maybe buried in an anthology somewhere? It would still be sad for it to not have a novel of its own, but at least there could be something.
Her death was never more than a blurb... Which is appropriate, because she was never central to anything.
Honestly, the impression that I'm getting here is that this isn't as much about Leira, Cyric, or even the Time of Troubles -- I get the impression that this is more about objecting to change in general.
|
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! |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 18 Sep 2014 : 22:35:51
|
Wooly, your ability to see and summarize another person's point of view is astounding.
************
It goes without saying (or at least it should) that the deities of the Realms as presented way back in the OGB already had a history. You can say they hadn’t seen much print time up to that point, but that doesn’t mean they’re effectively the same as a new deity like Kelemvor or Cyric who had no history and no back story beyond their lives as mortals.
There’s a reason the Dark Three are still of interest to fans of the Realms to this day.
Further, their loss represented a real loss of flavor. Hand waving that off as insignificant is just an example of ignoring the sentiments of the people who experienced the ToT.
It doesn’t matter what the outcome of the ToT was because fans of the Realms didn’t like the ToT and that sentiment is every bit as true as any statement by TSR as to why they created the ToT.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I don't think any amount of feedback would have influenced the Spellplague. They were not listening to fans of the Realms when they did that.
For the record this isn't true.
The feelings of frustration people felt with WotC were very real, certainly, but it's not as though WotC turned a deaf ear to fans of the setting.
Changes to the 4E Realms were made based on feedback from fans, after all. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 18 Sep 2014 22:59:24 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 18 Sep 2014 : 23:15:03
|
I am a fan of the Realms. I like the ToT.
I would disagree that the loss of the Dark Three was a loss of flavor. I've been a Realms fan since that time period, and I've always thought that replacing them increased the flavor of the setting.
Whether or not someone likes something, it doesn't change the reasoning behind it being done. TSR said it was to update the settings for a rule change. Until someone can show me evidence otherwise, I'm sticking with the official statement made by the people who owned the setting, who wrote the changes, and who published the changes.
And if WotC listened to fans of the setting for the Spellplague, why were so many fans of the setting so upset by it? |
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 18 Sep 2014 23:20:06 |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 18 Sep 2014 : 23:26:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I am a fan of the Realms. I like the ToT.
But you weren't around, as I understand it, when the ToT happened. When I say “fans of the Realms” I’m talking about active fans that experienced the ToT first hand.
Experiencing it vs. learning about it after the fact are two different things, as you well know.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Whether or not someone likes something, it doesn't change the reasoning behind it being done.
I don’t think anyone, even xaeyruudh, is arguing with you over the reasons why the ToT happened.
From what I can tell, he’s criticizing the decisions TSR made.
You seem to be taking his criticism as an argument against your view of TSR history, and so you’re responding in kind. Could you maybe back off a little?
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And if WotC listened to fans of the setting for the Spellplague, why were so many fans of the setting so upset by it?
The concealed claim in your logic is that WotC should have run everything by “the fans” before making all their decisions. That’s not something they’re required to do.
Your question also assumes that if WotC had done things the way you wanted them to that everything would have turned out great. But you know as well as I do there’s no guarantee of that.
It’s simply not true that WotC turned a deaf ear to the fanbase.
|
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 18 Sep 2014 : 23:40:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Actually, I think using a major event that shakes up the heavens themselves is the perfect way to explain a rules change. The Time of Troubles served quite admirably as an in-setting catalyst for the changes to rules.
Without something affecting the gods, how would you explain every single member of a particular class losing all of their special abilities?
And when there is something wholly new in the rules, especially something that was not possible before, how do you implement this in the setting without changing things? And/or if something that previously worked one way now works another way, how can this be explained without changes?
Assassin was a separate, playable class in 1E, and it was not a playable class in 2E. You can't say the same about blacksmiths; they were never a class.
Sorry, but this doesn't make sense to me. Rules are just that, rules. By them, an halfling could outstrength a dragon or a giant, or kill colossal creatures with daggers, and that is just really stupid. Rules provide a game system, not a reliable rapresentation of how things work in the setting.
Fpr example, ''assassin'' is a profession, assassins are there whether the rules say so or not. Class abilities are rough models to represent what some people can do in the world, it's not like people's skills change according to rules. Should WotC decide to remove the fighter from D&D classes, would you expect all warriors to disappear and Tempus to die? The world doesn't change because we decided that some physics law doesn't fit anymore, same happens with fictional settings. The only problem I could see is with how magic is portrayed in novels (vancian/not vancian), but then you could simply say that the limited number of spells/day is due to fatigue or use other minor tweaks and be done with it: the story won't be altered because of that.
Blowing stuff up from on high just because some game rules changed isn't really some kind of story I would like to see and isn't soemthing that adds to the setting, unless you use such a tale as an excuse to do so (but then, I'd rather have a stroy focused on what it is meant to add and just leave out the ''changing the world because game rules'' part).
Furthermore FR can be used with systems different from D&D, should DMs set up huge RSEs just because they want to play with another kind of rules? |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 18 Sep 2014 23:50:03 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 18 Sep 2014 : 23:59:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I am a fan of the Realms. I like the ToT.
But you weren't around, as I understand it, when the ToT happened. When I say “fans of the Realms” I’m talking about active fans that experienced the ToT first hand.
Experiencing it vs. learning about it after the fact are two different things, as you well know.
Yes, I was an active fan of the setting when the Time of Troubles happened.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Whether or not someone likes something, it doesn't change the reasoning behind it being done.
I don’t think anyone, even xaeyruudh, is arguing with you over the reasons why the ToT happened.
From what I can tell, he’s criticizing the decisions TSR made.
You seem to be taking his criticism as an argument against your view of TSR history, and so you’re responding in kind. Could you maybe back off a little?
Two exact quotes:
"I'm left with the feeling that the whole purpose of the TOT was to introduce Cyric and make him unalterably a part of the Realms"
"I meant to say that adding Cyric was the point of the TOT, and removing several other gods was a "necessary" consequence of that, and I'll stand by that."
Those statements are saying that the official stated reasons for the ToT are not what TSR said. Criticizing the decisions is fine. Saying the designers lied is something else.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And if WotC listened to fans of the setting for the Spellplague, why were so many fans of the setting so upset by it?
The concealed claim in your logic is that WotC should have run everything by “the fans” before making all their decisions. That’s not something they’re required to do.
That is putting words in my mouth.
You can look at any number of scrolls here and see some very heated discussions, even pure vitriol, directed at the changes of the 4E Realms. That is not something you'd see if they had been listening to us.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Your question also assumes that if WotC had done things the way you wanted them to that everything would have turned out great. But you know as well as I do there’s no guarantee of that.
And you are again putting words in my mouth. I'm saying that if people were given what they wanted, they'd not be leaving the setting and/or turning to other rulesets.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
It’s simply not true that WotC turned a deaf ear to the fanbase.
I see no evidence in support of that. I see plenty of evidence to indicate that turning a deaf ear is exactly what they did. |
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! |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 19 Sep 2014 : 00:06:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Actually, I think using a major event that shakes up the heavens themselves is the perfect way to explain a rules change. The Time of Troubles served quite admirably as an in-setting catalyst for the changes to rules.
Without something affecting the gods, how would you explain every single member of a particular class losing all of their special abilities?
And when there is something wholly new in the rules, especially something that was not possible before, how do you implement this in the setting without changing things? And/or if something that previously worked one way now works another way, how can this be explained without changes?
Assassin was a separate, playable class in 1E, and it was not a playable class in 2E. You can't say the same about blacksmiths; they were never a class.
Sorry, but this doesn't make sense to me. Rules are just that, rules. By them, an halfling could outstrength a dragon or a giant, or kill colossal creatures with daggers, and that is just really stupid. Rules provide a game system, not a reliable rapresentation of how things work in the setting.
Fpr example, ''assassin'' is a profession, assassins are there whether the rules say so or not. Class abilities are rough models to represent what some people can do in the world, it's not like people's skills change according to rules. Should WotC decide to remove the fighter from D&D classes, would you expect all warriors to disappear and Tempus to die? The world doesn't change because we decided that some physics law doesn't fit anymore, same happens with fictional settings. The only problem I could see is with how magic is portrayed in novels (vancian/not vancian), but then you could simply say that the limited number of spells/day is due to fatigue or use other minor tweaks and be done with it: the story won't be altered because of that.
Blowing stuff up from on high just because some game rules changed isn't really some kind of story I would like to see and isn't soemthing that adds to the setting, unless you use such a tale as an excuse to do so (but then, I'd rather have a stroy focused on what it is meant to add and just leave out the ''changing the world because game rules'' part).
Furthermore FR can be used with systems different from D&D, should DMs set up huge RSEs just because they want to play with another kind of rules?
Assassin is a profession, but it was also a distinct class in 1E. Anyone could kill for hire, but only those with the Assassin class had specific abilities.
And then this was no longer an option -- the rules no longer supported those special abilities. If you want to maintain any kind of consistency in a setting that -- like it or not -- is a game setting, then you've got to provide an explanation for when the rules change and make a prior option unavailable.
Sure, blowing up the setting isn't the only option. But it is an option, and doing something on the same scale as the Time of Troubles can explain how abilities are lost and never again possible.
And no, DMs don't have to have RSEs to explain using non-D&D rules -- because DMs aren't publishing their version of the setting.
One of the strengths of the Realms has always been continuity. You can't change things without explanation and maintain continuity. Bigger changes require bigger explanations. |
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 19 Sep 2014 00:08:21 |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 19 Sep 2014 : 00:13:30
|
But -as I said- rules are not a realistic description of people's skills in a setting (and a setting is a world first, one that can be used to play games, not one that has to bend to them), they are a model (like the laws of physics are a model of how nature works), they have little to do with the continuity of the events in the Realms.
The skills of the ''assassin'' class are a model of what some specialized assassins can do (and I don't think those are granted by gods, rather by training), removing it from the game doesn't magically cancel such abilities. As I said, should WotC get rid of fighters in the rules, there would still be warriors in the Realms, and there would be no need to remove Tempus to explain the changes (in fact, it would be really stupid IMO).
Also I guess that there are many options that rules don't cover, that doesn't mean that they cannot appear in the world. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 19 Sep 2014 00:14:32 |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 19 Sep 2014 : 00:58:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Yes, I was an active fan of the setting when the Time of Troubles happened.
Interesting. I could have swore you’ve stated several times that wasn’t the case.
Regardless, I’d wager you were in the minority.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Two exact quotes:
"I'm left with the feeling that the whole purpose of the TOT was to introduce Cyric and make him unalterably a part of the Realms"
"I meant to say that adding Cyric was the point of the TOT, and removing several other gods was a "necessary" consequence of that, and I'll stand by that."
Those statements are saying that the official stated reasons for the ToT are not what TSR said. Criticizing the decisions is fine. Saying the designers lied is something else.
No……the first statement starts with “I’m left with the feeling.” That’s a subjective statement, not an objective one.
The second statement is an opinion and one that flies in the face of the known history.
Last I checked, that’s not against the law or against the rules.
What neither of those two sentences say—literally do not say—is that the history is wrong or that TSR lied.
Those are your words.
How do you expect anyone to interact with you when you put words into their mouths, accuse them of something they didn’t do, then sit back and hit them over and over for something they never did?
Are you beginning to see why it is that interacting with you online can sometimes be a real pain in the ass?
Look at how he had to word it, “I stand by that.” He said it that way because you backed him into a corner.
How are we supposed to have pleasant, interesting discussions if anyone who disagrees with someone else’s opinion decides it’s his or her job to play the adversary and attack, attack, attack?
And before you claim you weren’t attacking, I’ll remind you that you kept repeating the same thing in several posts. If your goal had been simply to share useful information and then leave X to his opinions and suppositions, you would have done things differently.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
That is putting words in my mouth.
No….that’s looking at your statement (as a claim it would be written, “If game designers listen to the fans then they have successful product launches.”) and then proposing reasons for how it could be true.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
You can look at any number of scrolls here and see some very heated discussions, even pure vitriol, directed at the changes of the 4E Realms. That is not something you'd see if they had been listening to us.
That’s not proof of anything other than that people on the internet have opinions.
Candlekeep is not special vis-à-vis all other fans of the Realms. We’re not better or more important just because we choose to spend a slice of our free time interacting with and arguing with strangers on the internet who also happen to have an above average interest in the Realms.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
And you are again putting words in my mouth. I'm saying that if people were given what they wanted, they'd not be leaving the setting and/or turning to other rulesets.
See above. Plus, WotC did give people what they wanted. A lot of people.
There is this enduring fiction on Candlekeep that anyone who criticized the Realms prior to 4E hated it and wanted to burn it down, when the fact is there were a huge number of people who played in the Realms, found parts of it lacking and weren’t afraid to say so. They may not have been super fans, but they sure as hell were not haters.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
I see no evidence in support of that. I see plenty of evidence to indicate that turning a deaf ear is exactly what they did.
You know as well as I do that the final roster of deities was revised in one instance based off of fan feedback. Rich Baker brought a post on his thread to the attention of the designers and in response they switched up the list. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 19 Sep 2014 01:47:12 |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 19 Sep 2014 : 01:00:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
But -as I said- rules are not a realistic description of people's skills in a setting (snip)
While you may feel that way, that's not necessarily how TSR saw the Realms, nor how they thought gamers saw the Realms.
The Realms has always reflected the D&D rules set. A whole lot of flavor for the Realms has been written based off of D&D rules.
When the rules changed, the world had to change. That's just how they saw it. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7968 Posts |
Posted - 19 Sep 2014 : 01:23:25
|
When the rules change, the world has to change.
I do agree with that statement, to a point. It seemed to be the governing principle behind much of AD&D 2E. Really, the only circa-1E/2E example I can think of which doesnt fit in would be the Moonshae novels: for them, the rules changed to accomodate the world.
But somewhere in the 3E era things got swapped around. Rules written to feature stuff introduced in FR novels.
As of 4E (and beyond?) there doesnt seem to be any meaningful distinction. Game design and fiction storylines appear engineered to support each other and are basically released to market simultaneously. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 19 Sep 2014 : 01:25:11
|
quote:
While you may feel that way, that's not necessarily how TSR saw the Realms, nor how they thought gamers saw the Realms.
The Realms has always reflected the D&D rules set. A whole lot of flavor for the Realms has been written based off of D&D rules.
When the rules changed, the world had to change. That's just how they saw it.
As you said, some elements of various settings (mainly magic) take inspiration from the rules. If they reflected how the actual reality of the setting works, it would completely break suspension of disbelief (for me, at least).
You have huge monsters with like 40-50hp, while even tiny creatures can reach more than that (or even have more strength); you have people being stabbed, slashed, burned, electrocuted and surviving like it was a walk in the park; you have monsters like iron golems or elementals being destroyed by hits from daggers or slings (even mundane ones, in some cases, so it's not ''magic'') and so on. Even in fantasy this kind of stuff looks pretty ridiculous. You can now use the excuse of interpretation, but that's where the ''model'' part kicks in: the technical rules just don't reliably reflect the way things work, they are a guide to simulate and predict/find out the result of some action/skill. I tried to make my point clear on the matter of assassins or any other class, their skills remain the same whether or not there are rules for them, because rules are made to represent them in a mechanical way (in fact I think designers try to imagine how a class would act in battle/exploration/whatever first, and once they figured it out, they try to mechanically represent that flavor i.e. a model).
That's why I think that it is not wise to bend and change the world just because some game changed its rules, otherwise you're going to end up with stuff like Mystra dying every other edition. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 19 Sep 2014 01:37:42 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 19 Sep 2014 : 05:18:09
|
| Edit: scratch all that. Danced this dance with Jeremy way too many times. |
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 19 Sep 2014 05:37:41 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
The future of RSEs?
