Upgrade to new edition = World-Shaking Event

[TheAuldGrump]

Ummm, yes and no - the world shaking event happened, but there was no 1st or 2nd ed. version of the campaign. The changes included magic becoming more commo, and the return of sorcery.

The premise being that the wars of religion was eroding the 'wall of faith' that limited what the will of humanitas alone could effect.

The first sign was the return of sorcery, and wizards gaining more spells. (This was when play began.)
The second sign was the return of the 'Shrouded Isles' or 'Western Isles' or 'Avalon'. (The geographical Great Britain analog.) Home of the elfs and fey.
The third sign was the return of the creatures of magic. (Fey in areas other than the Shrouded Isles, centuars, etc.)
The fourth sign was the return of the dragons.
The fifth (and preventable) sign... hellmouth gapes and appocalypse begins.

However, peoples from pagan areas knew that the creatures of magic still existed, dragons, though small in number, were still present, etc. It was only in the civilized areas that the change was even noticed... The single exception - wizardry (as opposed to sorcery) is a creation of civilization.

The Auld Grump

 

[Thanee]

I am of the general philosophy that the rules should serve the game, not vice versa. Changing the game because the rules changed is a bit of the tail wagging the dog, IMO.

Heh. Altho it could be kinda seen as serving the game by providing some way to create a world-shaking event which introduces the new rules changes.

Wasn't there some big change in the AD&D FR fluff when 2nd edition came out?
Was that the times of trouble? I don't recall exactly, but I think there was some connection.

Bye
Thanee

 

[dead]

I am of the general philosophy that the rules should serve the game, not vice versa. Changing the game because the rules changed is a bit of the tail wagging the dog, IMO.

That very true, but you can't get away with the fact that sometimes a change of rules from a new edition is very visible in the game.

Let's say, for example, that you could cast spells from spell books in previous editions but now you can't. Somehow you must explain this change in game terms.

 

[Ottergame]

Somehow you must explain this change in game terms.

Why? Can't we just say "Yeah, the rules changed. We're going to pretend that this is the way the world has always been, no more explination required." WHY do you have to create some nonsense in game reason for a change like this?

Just continue playing and pretend the new rules have always been there.

 

[s/LaSH]

I didn't actually play 2e, nor run any game that transitioned betweeen editions, so I didn't vote. However, were I to find myself in that situation, I'd just say 'hey, new rules, I think these work better, let's update the characters'. Because frankly, I don't care about the rules - I care about the characters, and in no case has an edition said 'let's take away some options now', so it's not like they're penalised by the change. And upward power growth is fundamental to just about every RPG ever, so it's not a big surprise in character either.

 

[dead]

Why? Can't we just say "Yeah, the rules changed. We're going to pretend that this is the way the world has always been, no more explination required." WHY do you have to create some nonsense in game reason for a change like this?

Just continue playing and pretend the new rules have always been there.

If you can get away with it, then that's great. But what happens if in a previous edition a player has got fond memories of a situation where he cast all his spells and had to resort to using one from his spell book. This spell cast from the spell book saved an entire village. It is now carved into the history of the campaign.

Now spells can't be cast from spellbooks.

So somehow this must be explained. I'm not saying you have to create a World-Shaking event to explain it, but certainly *some* explanation within the game is necessary. For example, the GM might say: "Oh, your spell book used to be a bunch of scrolls bound together in the past. The spellbook you had and the ones you have found previously were extremely rare; you want be finding anymore that you can cast spells out of".

Something must be said. It's very difficult to just pretend all of those fond memories that hinged on older edition rules now "didn't happen".

 

[Ottergame]

If you can get away with it, then that's great. But what happens if in a previous edition a player has got fond memories of a situation where he cast all his spells and had to resort to using one from his spell book. This spell cast from the spell book saved an entire village. It is now carved into the history of the campaign.

Now spells can't be cast from spellbooks.

So somehow this must be explained. I'm not saying you have to create a World-Shaking event to explain it, but certainly *some* explanation within the game is necessary. For example, the GM might say: "Oh, your spell book used to be a bunch of scrolls bound together in the past. The spellbook you had and the ones you have found previously were extremely rare; you want be finding anymore that you can cast spells out of".

Something must be said. It's very difficult to just pretend all of those fond memories that hinged on older edition rules now "didn't happen".

I don't really qualifiy that as a "world shaking event". I mean, you could easly change that story to say "he cast the spell from the scroll" and everyone should be able to accept that and move on.

Something like the Time of Troubles is the ultimate in lame world shaking events to explain rules changes. It's pandering to a crowd who cling to an annoying level immersion, who get all whiney when something "doesn't make sense" from their point of views on how the world works. I mean, crud, just take the rules changes, say it's always worked like this, and move on.

 

[dead]

I don't really qualifiy that as a "world shaking event". I mean, you could easly change that story to say "he cast the spell from the scroll" and everyone should be able to accept that and move on.

Something like the Time of Troubles is the ultimate in lame world shaking events to explain rules changes. It's pandering to a crowd who cling to an annoying level immersion, who get all whiney when something "doesn't make sense" from their point of views on how the world works. I mean, crud, just take the rules changes, say it's always worked like this, and move on.

No, it's not a world shaking event and that's why I said *I'm not saying you have to create a World-Shaking event to explain it*.

Also, my spell-book example is just one example in a million. Some can't be so easily dismissed.

But by saying he "cast it from a scroll" is, indeed, creating an in game explanation.

I agree that the FR Time of Troubles was very silly. In fact, I think any *officially* sanctioned in-game explanation should NOT happen -- it seems unnecessary. On a personal level, however, (ie. in your own private campaigns at home) some GMs may feel a need for some game event to explain the change. I was just curious to see how many GMs out there did have some in-game explanation when they went from 2E to 3E.

 

[Chacal]

Heh. Altho it could be kinda seen as serving the game by providing some way to create a world-shaking event which introduces the new rules changes.

Exactly what I thought. When we shifted from 2e to 3e, I wanted to have a rationale for the "raise of magic" that was represented by spontaneous casters and metamagick. So I designed a world-shaking event that progressively introduced them. The campaign, which would have reached his end now if I didn't move 800 km from my old players (remember this is a long distance in europe ), will eventually give the players some control on the level of magic on their world (assuming they succeed in managing the huge influences concerned, and the whole plane isn't invaded ).

Of course I didn't try to explain every rule change. For most of the rule changes we pretended that nothing had changed (the fact that we had a few year break playing other RPG helped a lot in this) . I also tried to limit the losses of important abilities for most PCs. The changes from 3 to 3.5 that I've heard of so far haven't inspired me major changes in the campaign world. And I don't think they should, especially because I don't want to overdo it.

Chacal