Vraille Darkfang
First Post
OK. I'll try to add soemthing new to this thread (from a gaming perspective). (I've read all the FR books, even Murder in Haluraa, & the Endless Quest (?) Spaen of Dragonspear).
First. I like Ed's books. He has a very unique writing style I find refeshing after reading a bunch of stuff that tends to have the same to identical styles. In fact if you gave me a writing sample & asked me to identify the writer, Ed's the only one I know for sure I'd get right. That said, I've never read more than 2 Ed Greenwood books in a row & I admit his style might wear thin after a while. As you can tell, Ed's style tends to leave a love or hate reaction behind.
I'd recommend picking up The Best of The Realms Anthology. See if there is an author you really like. It also has a very typical Ed Greenwood Story (Elminster at the Magefair I think).
Now if you want to read stuff from a D&D perspective, I'd stick with the newer releases. For the last few years I've noticed a tread in the newer novels (such as those of the Rogues series & the Scions of Arrabar Trilogy) to write "D&D". I mean I've noticed entire breaks in the action to stick in a breif paragraph about how soldier so & so feels this various effect that he either fights off or doesn't or how some mage gets bumped, thus loses her "Concentration" and has her spell feel. Really, the past few FR novels I've read feel more like I'm reading Flavor Text from the FRCS than a novel. Not a complaint, just an observation.
From a history perspective:
1. Anything orginally published before the orginal publication of the Avatar Trilogy is based on the 1st Edition rules of the D&D Game.
2. Around 2000 or so novels are based on the 3rd ed rules.
3. Ed & Salvatore have more than enough pull to ignore the rules so their works often don't remotely work in gameplay (especially D&D attempts to put the story ideas into D&D rule form; See 2nd edition Spellfire)
Later,
PS, I got a list of FR novels someplace,
First. I like Ed's books. He has a very unique writing style I find refeshing after reading a bunch of stuff that tends to have the same to identical styles. In fact if you gave me a writing sample & asked me to identify the writer, Ed's the only one I know for sure I'd get right. That said, I've never read more than 2 Ed Greenwood books in a row & I admit his style might wear thin after a while. As you can tell, Ed's style tends to leave a love or hate reaction behind.
I'd recommend picking up The Best of The Realms Anthology. See if there is an author you really like. It also has a very typical Ed Greenwood Story (Elminster at the Magefair I think).
Now if you want to read stuff from a D&D perspective, I'd stick with the newer releases. For the last few years I've noticed a tread in the newer novels (such as those of the Rogues series & the Scions of Arrabar Trilogy) to write "D&D". I mean I've noticed entire breaks in the action to stick in a breif paragraph about how soldier so & so feels this various effect that he either fights off or doesn't or how some mage gets bumped, thus loses her "Concentration" and has her spell feel. Really, the past few FR novels I've read feel more like I'm reading Flavor Text from the FRCS than a novel. Not a complaint, just an observation.
From a history perspective:
1. Anything orginally published before the orginal publication of the Avatar Trilogy is based on the 1st Edition rules of the D&D Game.
2. Around 2000 or so novels are based on the 3rd ed rules.
3. Ed & Salvatore have more than enough pull to ignore the rules so their works often don't remotely work in gameplay (especially D&D attempts to put the story ideas into D&D rule form; See 2nd edition Spellfire)
Later,
PS, I got a list of FR novels someplace,