D&D 5E Whatever "lore" is, it isn't "rules."

[Maxperson]

Defiling magic could be an interesting change for FR. Imagine if the elves all used preserving magic which they taught the humans of Netheril. The Netheril wizards started out as preservers but found they could push their magic to greater heights at the expense of the vitality of the land around them. Instead of the phaerimm (or was it the sharn?) causing the desert it was the Netherese and their overuse of defiling. Now in the current timeline, defiling has been lost or possibly blocked by the goddess of magic much as she blocked the greater levels of spells after Netheril's fall.

Sounds fun!

 

[cbwjm]

Sounds fun!

I think it would be especially cool to position the campaign timeline after the spell plague. With the goddess of magic dead, wizards discover the power of defiling magic again.

 

[pemerton]

No company wants to be the next New Coke no matter how much they like to shout hands back on.

I much prefer AD&D, where I can rest hands back on in a week or three.

 

[Maxperson]

I think it would be especially cool to position the campaign timeline after the spell plague. With the goddess of magic dead, wizards discover the power of defiling magic again.

That I'm not as fond of. I stopped my FR at 3e, because I didn't like the whole spell plague concept. I can see ways to bring it back without the spell plague, though.

 

[cbwjm]

That I'm not as fond of. I stopped my FR at 3e, because I didn't like the whole spell plague concept. I can see ways to bring it back without the spell plague, though.

I actually thought about it after posting. Time of troubles would be a good time to bring it back as well with the absence of mystra and, afterwards, an inexperienced midnight taking over defiling makes its way back.

You could also link it to Shar and shadowweave although the shadowweave is subtle whereas defiling is not. But that could just be another change.

 

[Maxperson]

I actually thought about it after posting. Time of troubles would be a good time to bring it back as well with the absence of mystra and, afterwards, an inexperienced midnight taking over defiling makes its way back.

You could also link it to Shar and shadowweave although the shadowweave is subtle whereas defiling is not. But that could just be another change.

You could even attribute it to Cyric or another evil god twisting things. Defilers could be altered so that when pure magic runs through them, it emerges corrupted and more powerful. Lots of ways to do this.

 

[cbwjm]

Doesn't FR have a god of corruption? That might be a good fit. Cyric would also be good since he hates mystra, defiling could be one of his insane schemes, whether he manages to hold onto the portfolio of defiling magic is another matter. You're right, so many good ideas for running this.

 

[Maxperson]

Doesn't FR have a god of corruption? That might be a good fit. Cyric would also be good since he hates mystra, defiling could be one of his insane schemes, whether he manages to hold onto the portfolio of defiling magic is another matter. You're right, so many good ideas for running this.

Moander was a god of corruption. He's dead, but could A) make a come back, or B) have a sect make use of pieces of his body to fuel the transformation into defilers.

 

[Hussar]

It seems like you grok the essential distinction. You can see the difference. The quibble over "definition" is unnecessary jargonwankery. (It's not my definition, either, and were I a jargonologist I might seek a more precise language, but I see the distinction and recognize it as real, and you seem to do that as well, so why worry about the meaning of a word for a thing that we all actually understand?)



Call it a flooferdoodle if that floats your boat. You can see that the distinction is real and relevant.

If WotC introduces a defiler into FR in the next series of adventures, you can bet your assets that this will still rain on someone's parade, at least a little bit. Like, someone who isn't big on FR being this cross-planar kitchen sink and would prefer it to be unique and special on its own would probably think it's a dumb move. Someone who really likes defilers and thinks that the most awesome aspect about them is that they're linked to Athas's apocalypse will probably be annoyed at this "mickey mouse" version. Etc., etc., ad nauseum.

Because you can't just pick up a defiler and drop it into FR and expect both of those things to work the same way they did before. You've changed the rules, so you've changed the experience.

Heh. If a 5e fan of FR is going to get bent out of shape over WotC adding elements from other settings to FR, methinks they're already pretty annoyed.

 

[Campbell]

At the end of the day Roleplaying Games are all about the fictional play space. The ways we relate to that play space (rules) and the initial fiction (setting) are both incredibly important to delivering a compelling experience. Satisfying play is found in a synthesis of the two. However, there are some issues with the way we generally approach that initial fiction.

• The initial fiction is written, not designed. Setting material is often not subject to the same rigors of the design process as rules are. It is not expected that the initial fiction will be iterated upon and subjected to play testing. As players, we do not view creation of the initial fiction as a game design task that should be engaged with as much consideration as we give the introduction of new rules, despite the dramatic impact it has on play. We also become committed to it in a way we never quite are with system hacks. There is also the matter of how game designers have historically been rewarded with perverse incentives to create massive amounts of setting material without having to justify its inclusion as long as they didn't contradict anything and fit the theme of the book they were working on. When you are a freelancer and have to get in 5,000 more words it becomes all to easy to inflict more setting material on a gameline. It does not have to be tested to see what value it adds to the play space, what decisions it enables players to make, or even if it is likely to come up at all. As long as it is entertaining to read and does not contradict what came before. There is also no real effort to work on the way we present setting in the same way that rules presentation is experimented with. I know. I know. I'm the last person who should be lecturing about brevity.
  
• We do not approach the initial fiction with a critical eye. I'm mostly looking at fans here. When we encounter new rules in a supplement we mull them over, consider the impact they will have on our games, what value they will add. This all stuff we should be doing for new rules. We should also be doing the same thing with new setting material. There is also the issue that criticism of rules and their impact on play is often considered valuable, but criticism of setting material is often seen as an affront to the setting.
  
• We privilege the initial fiction by giving it an intrinsic value. Here, I'm looking at GMs primarily, although it applies to some players as well. When we create or read setting material we tend to fall in love with it in a way that is entirely disconnected from play - often refusing to adjust material at the table if it would make for a better play experience. The same applies to players who become to attached to their conception of their characters. I'm a firm believer that The Play Is The Thing. Right now, at the table, is where we bring everything together and play to find out what happens.
  
• We assume more is better. Look at the debate over change vs. addition in this thread. There is an unspoken assumption that there is virtue in detail, and it has largely been unchallenged. We set unrealistic expectations upon our ability to bear the cognitive weight of vast swathes of setting material.