Edit: removed some of the language from my post that was unintentionally insulting.
Some famous sword or something like that wrote:
Wow. So much to say.
Yet so much of it is so hard to swallow. I've read your second post already, and although it does clarify what you're doing somewhat, there's still some real gaping logic holes in your position here.
Let me begin by saying that any skilled DM realizes the dire importance of reading before trying to run a game. If a DM wishes to enter the world of Faerun, he or she must read the novels and accept them as scripture, not only to honor the authors, but to create a solid, almost tangible gaming experience. He or she must know who the Chosen are, who Alusair and Vangerdahast are, who Elminster is, who the enemies of the good races are, and how the realm works. One must have a feel for Faerun, and this doesn't come with the PHB, the DMG, or even the FRCS.
This, along with your statement later that the FR is a "novel-based campaign setting" is completely false, and where your argument turns mushy. FR is not a novel-based campaign setting, FR is a D&D based campaign setting that later got a bunch of novels written. Sure, there's been a lot of intertwining of the two, but the fact remains that you've got this completely back-@$$wards. You seem to have little understanding of how the novels are written if you think it's even feasible to use them as "scripture" for your campaign setting. And it doesn't make any sense to do so anyway. How do you cope with new novels as they are introduced? If your PCs are actually doing anything at all, their must be contradictions popping up all the time in your campaign setting.
Why do I say this? Because a good FR DM will encourage his or her players to read the novels, allowing them to make the connections between the game and the books. It's a marvelous thing when players encounter Shadowdale at the gaming table, and then take up books like Spellfire and see the similarities. It makes reading them more fun, and it makes gaming a more tangible experience, as I said before.
It also screws things up royally when players know so much more about the setting than their characters. I'd disagree completely with what you said and say instead that a FR DM (or any DM for that matter) that relies on novels to create a tangible experience is not a good DM; he's instead using the works of hack writers as a crutch for good DMing.
What does this mean? This means that, even though 3E mentions nothing about drow equipment eventually crumbling in sunlight, it still happens. There are many, many, many FR novels that detail how drow equipment crumbles in sunlight. How on earth can a compitent DM discount this information simply because 3E forgot to cover it? And how will players react when they read the Dark Elf trilogy and wonder why their DM allows them to use drow equipment in broad daylight? They may say to themselves, "Jeez, I'm sure glad my +4 drow sword still works," but such comments come from a gaming table where material possessions and magical items are the only thing anyone fights for. Intelligent individuals will say, "Hmmmm, someone hasn't done his research," and the magic of the game is what crumbles. Not good.
Someone hasn't done their research if they believe that FR is a novel based campaign or that games in the FR must conform to the novels or else they are invalidated. A little basic understanding of the genesis of the FR (which as a non-fan, even I know quite well) could be obtained by a little research. Intelligent individuals see that 3e didn't "forget" to cover things like this, they
consciously changed them because they didn't work well and were illogical.
3E is not something that totally replaces 2E. 3E is indeed a patch for 2E, and that patch has created massive contradictions. All of a sudden drow equipment doesn't crumble in sunlight. How on Toril did this happen? Another example is infravision. What happened to infravision? Are we supposed to believe that there was some titanic clash in the heavens of Toril, rearranging the very fabric of reality, randomly changing things here and there? It is these contradictions that the DM must struggle with. An annoying player asks, "Uh, what's up with the Dark Elf Trilogy? Drow society is strongly based on infravision. How do the dark elves tell time by Narbondel if they, all of a sudden, with no explanation, are now using darkvision?" Darkvision is not infravision, and the new rules create confusion. This is but one example of how the 3E "patch" throws a wrench into the game. In Salvatore's next novel, how will he deal with darkvision? His heat stones will mean nothing, Narbondel is now useless, Drizzt won't be able to track by the heat of his prey's footfalls, and the world that is the Underdark is changed forever. Just one of many mistakes made by the creators of 3E.
The only mistake here is your continued insistence that 3e is indeed a patch for 2e, despite all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Your playing with blinders on. If you are going to hold to this position, you're really better off just sticking with 2e, frankly. 3e is a poor patch for 2e because it is not a patch for 2e. It's like Windows 98 vs. Windows XP. Things have changed on purpose.
By and large, the novels contain the most (and best) information for any novel-based campaign (DL or FR). The DM must be in character as much as the players. If he or she isn't, the players will notice, and they might not have as much fun as they should. If the players don't notice, then everyone at the table is an idiot, and may Mystra have mercy on their souls.
I'd agree with you if you were playing a campaign set in the world of the Wheel of Time, or Hyperboria from Robert E. Howard or something like that. But you're not. You're playing a campaign setting that has had a hodge-podge of novels written
after the fact by a number of different authors, each with a different vision of the FR and the places they were setting their adventures.
I understand the need to do your own thing. And I understand that not everyone reads the novels. However, as an English Writing graduate and future English teacher, I have bigger issues, and a much larger scope than most DMs (which is why I seldom agree to join a game as a player). The novels are the perfect companion to the game, and it's for the enjoyment of the players that I use them so much. I want my players to read, and make connections, and think critically when playing my games.
Don't you think it's a bit elitist of you to say that your issues as a DM are bigger and your scope is bigger than most DMs? That may be true, but how do
you know that? And you've failed to make any kind of link between faithfully following the novels and having a bigger scope to your game. And, as I mentioned above, if you play this way, you must be opening yourself up to inconsistencies in your campaign every time a new FR novel is published. I also fail to see why tossing in your academic/vocational credentials makes your game any better than mine. I have a graduate degree too, and I use things I learned there to enhance my games both as a player and as a DM. So what?
Further, as a writer, I take the games I write and run and transform them to prose fiction. For someone who would like to see his games become publishable novels, I MUST use the novels and stick to the information there. If I turn in a manuscript to the editors of Wizards and they don't see that I know the world, they'll can my piece. I can't have that. You could say I'm a professional DM. I run my games like I'm working for Wizards of the Coast. Most DMs don't do that. Unfortunately, being a grad student, I don't really have the time to fashion my own campaign world, so I use FR.
This whole paragraph makes little sense. If you weren't a grad student, you'd do your own campaign world? But you'd still try to get WotC to publish your novels? Fat chance! Not only that, have you checked the writers guidelines lately? I have not, as I have little interest in doing so, but I'd be very surprised if you were expected to maintain 2e conventions nowadays. FR has been updated to 3e whether or not
you have. That's the official position. Rather than grouse about it, you should either stick to 2e if that's what you like better, or heartily embrace 3e if you're serious about getting published by WotC.
Also, as a DM, I see myself as a teacher more than anything. Teaching and DMing are very similar. A campaign is a unit plan. An adventure is a fun day of class. Monsters, treasure, experience, and such are the rewards or grades, and the PHB and DMG are the texts. I stand before my group, using the chalkboard, and I do most of the talking (descriptions, dialogue, NPC actions, monster and enemy tactics, etc), and the players (the students) respond to my output. The similarities are there. The novels go hand in hand. The group explores Waterdeep, noting places like the Yawning Portal, Castle Waterdeep, and Blackstaff Tower. I want my gamers to be able to read a Cunningham novel, or the Waterdeep novel itself, and see the similarities with my games. Those connections make for a better game, a better reading experience, and a better understanding of the world, and the game. I can say it any plainer. I suggest DMs try it out and see what happens. Their players will quickly change from roll-players to role-players, which is what the game is all about (aside from the obvious, that being HAVING FUN!)
If your group has fun that way, more power to you. I doubt you'll find that many other groups operate under any kind of master/student paradigm, though, and I'd be leery of taking the master in Dungeon Master too seriously. In my group, we typically DM for a few monthes or so and then rotate around, pick up a new setting, roll up new characters, etc. We see D&D as a much more collaborative effort between equals, not between teacher and student.
And watch the name calling (troll). Let's try to at least behave like adults. I may have green skin, but I bleed like any other creature out there, except my wounds don't close quite as fast.
Troll isn't an insult, it's a description. A troll is someone who posts inflammatory opinions with the sole purpose of generating heated replies. I truly believe that wasn't your intention (probably) but ironically, you couldn't have trolled better if you'd tried.
