That's correct.
The ToT was the in-world explanation for all the rules changes going on in the transition from D&D to AD&D.
D&D 5E Why FR Is "Hated"
The ToT was the in-world explanation for all the rules changes going on in the transition from D&D to AD&D.
KahlessNestor
Adventurer
Surprisingly, I'm in 3 FFG Star Wars games right now, and been in several others since the line came out, and NONE of them started the way you say they all do... In fact, we only ever even met any of the movie characters in one or two of the campaigns, and most of the time they weren't major appearances, mostly just quest givers or fan service. The PCs were still the story.
rabindranath72
Explorer
Actually ToT covered going from AD&D 1e to AD&D 2e (the Forgotten Realms Adventures hardback covers everything). But from the point of view of clerics (at least, their in-game relationships with the gods) nothing really changed between 1e and 2e.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
That is not correct. Gods requiring mortal worshipers was consistent in the base rules from 1e through all of 2e. While the Time of Troubles was about rules transitions, that was not one that needed transitioning. It was present in 1e already.
Agreed, Gods Needing Worship was something that existed in D&D before the FR ever embraced the idea. Prior to the Time of Troubles, Forgotten Realms had a more "realistic" theological approach since their gods didn't need mortals.
I say "realistic" in the sense that most theological pantheons do not require any worship.
Aldarc
Legend
You are correct that his account was probably too strongly worded as to imply his experience as a universal one. Nevertheless, I suppose this is why some settings are a problem for some but not for others: differing sets of experiences as a player or GM. If someone says, for example, that the high-profile NPCs have been an annoyance for them in Forgotten Realms, then while this problem may not be universal, it is problematic enough to become a point of contention for those people. (And this seems to be a common enough one in terms of frequency of greivance.) I doubt it would be particularly helpful to either blame the GM or to callously dismiss the sour experiences of these players as if their words were but wind. Perhaps, rather than trying to provide a counter-experience or dismiss these players' sour experiences, it would be more helpful and beneifical to recognize that this can be a problem with running the Realms. Not a universal problem, but a potential pitfall nonetheless.
As I said before, I do suspect that this issue, particularly in regards to the Realms, Dragonlance, and other non-D&D franchises (e.g. Star Wars) is psychological. For some people, there is certainly the question of why these NPCs aren't doing this task themselves. But I do think that another issue is the getting over the psychological hump of what can feel like a text-focused setting. By "text-focused setting," I refer to settings that are strongly rooted outside of the tabletop fiction in other media: e.g,. Star Wars (films, games, novels), Harry Potter (books), or Middle Earth (books, games). While Star Wars could be a world setting that I could potentially consider roleplaying, Star Wars (for me at least) is about these characters in the films, television series, and games (the latter to a much lesser extent). It's not that I have any envy of the heroic status of Luke, Han, and Leia, or some vain desire to outshine them in saving the universe, as some have condescendingly implied about this line of objection. I just have a more difficult time immersing myelf in a world where the setting is so closely associated with the fiction of other fictional characters. I can play in a non-powered superhero campaign where there is a grandiose Superman-like "Captain Awesome" much easier than I could in a DC game where Superman exists. Captain Awesome could even be more powerful than Superman and my character. I would not mind. The problem lies far less in the power level of the characters and more with roleplaying within the bounds of the associated outside fiction. That is generally why I greatly prefer to run as a GM (or participate in as a player) settings "inspired-by" these other settings.
This, in some respects, true for D&D, particularly of settings that have a strong connection with extra-tabletop fiction. There have probably been far many more people to read the Dragonlance books than play in the Dragonlance setting. I, for one, have not played in Dragonlance. I associate Dragonlance with the novels over against the tabletop experience. So the setting sometimes feels less like a place where I would play a roleplaying character and more like a place where these novels transpire. That, I suspect, is part of the problem for Forgotten Realms. It's so closely tied to these novels (and even video games), for good and for ill, that some people have a difficult time seeing it as something other than a world associated with the characters of these novels. (Now while I could hypothetically run a campaign "inspired by Forgotten Realms" that removes these oft-spoken-about NPCs, Forgotten Realms does little to inspire me in the first place, so it is already a dud on my end, though I understand that's not true for everyone.)
Got me there.
I've always tended to think of 1E as "D&D" and 2E as "AD&D", the better to keep the two editions separate in my mind.
No, I believe it is correct.
Faiths & Avatars, published in 1996 and thus post-Time of Troubles, formalized for the Realms the rules for how deities gain and lose power, what is and is not precisely known about that process, how mortals view the concept of worship, and a host of other issues related to divine business in the Realms.
While 1E Legends & Lore (aka Deities & Demigods) did a good job of providing DMs with material for their campaigns, it's not the case that this book set down rules for how deities function in published campaign worlds. Indeed, L&L predates the published Realms by about six years, and F&P by sixteen.
That, and L&L makes clear (on page 5) that "the most important thing to remember " [about the] book is that it is a list of guidelines, not rules. It's an aid for the DM, not a set of instructions.
Until F&P, the deities of the Realms--at least the evil ones--were arrogant and content in their power--they thought nothing of striking down mortals that irked them, as Bane did to an unfortunate mortal in Aglarond--and eager to seek more power (thus the theft of the Tablets of Fate).
The Time of Troubles changed that.
My mistake in my last post was that I should have indicated that the transition from 1E to 2E involved not just in-world stories for all the rules changes, but in-world stories for some of the behind the scenes housecleaning and organizing that TSR undertook for the Realms, such as the changes to divine pantheons and the introduction of rules for how many divine matters work.
A hole in my knowledge has to do with L&L for 2nd edition: Does it keep its predecessor's role as a guidebook (and not rulebook)?
Last edited:
Chaosmancer
Legend
One thing I can never get over is these discussions about which 20-40 year old book set the standard for X and whether it was in Y edition, Z edition, or what have you.
For me, as the young guy in the room who wasn't even born until 1991, it just seems strange. I never owned any books before 3.5, I never played before 4e (Yeah, owned a few 3.5 books, never found anyone to play with, even family) and playing 4e came towards the end of the cycle. I DM'd two 4e campaigns. One lasted two sessions, the other a few months. Then I switched to 5e.
From my perspective it's all ancient history and I don't see how when it changed to be what it is today has much bearing on the truth of what it is today.
Of course, it's also why whenever someone says "But according to this article of this magazine written in 198X this was established as canon" I have no idea what they are talking about. All of this material is older than I am, so it's no wonder I have no clue or access to it, barring buying out a bunch of stuff from DrivethruRPG or some similar site. You pick up things reading internet discussions, but it's hard to get invested in a canon that's going to change in a few years when the new material comes out.
For me, as the young guy in the room who wasn't even born until 1991, it just seems strange. I never owned any books before 3.5, I never played before 4e (Yeah, owned a few 3.5 books, never found anyone to play with, even family) and playing 4e came towards the end of the cycle. I DM'd two 4e campaigns. One lasted two sessions, the other a few months. Then I switched to 5e.
From my perspective it's all ancient history and I don't see how when it changed to be what it is today has much bearing on the truth of what it is today.
Of course, it's also why whenever someone says "But according to this article of this magazine written in 198X this was established as canon" I have no idea what they are talking about. All of this material is older than I am, so it's no wonder I have no clue or access to it, barring buying out a bunch of stuff from DrivethruRPG or some similar site. You pick up things reading internet discussions, but it's hard to get invested in a canon that's going to change in a few years when the new material comes out.
L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
