Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 210587" data-attributes="member: 2205">Edit: removed some of the language from my post that was unintentionally insulting.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.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.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.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.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.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.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?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.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification