That's correct.Was a result of the time of troubles that the gods now required worshippers whereas before they didnt?
The ToT was the in-world explanation for all the rules changes going on in the transition from D&D to AD&D.
That's correct.Was a result of the time of troubles that the gods now required worshippers whereas before they didnt?
It's not just the Realms, but the Realms gets blamed for it more often.
Nearly every SW game I've ever played in began with the premise "so the Death Star blew up Yavin, killing Luke and Leia and most of the Alliance leaders..." It's done because the GM can't or doesn't want to write around the known heroes for exactly the same BS reasons Eliminster or Drizzt is hated. Once you have an established hero known for saving the world, the natural question to any plot hookv presented to the PCs is "why isn't Luke/Gandalf/Harry Potter/The Doctor/the Avengers/Justice League handling this?"
There are two settings in D&D that have similar "face heroes", FR and Dragonlance. And surprise, they both get a lot of flack for it. Yet ironically, they are probably the best known settings because of those characters. Catch 22, if you ask me.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
Got me there.Actually ToT covered going from AD&D 1e to AD&D 2e
No, I believe it is correct.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.