Old Material still useful? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Old Material still useful? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
GavinHope
08-16-05, 08:20 AM Hi all,

It's been a while since I last played D&D - about 10 years maybe. I've come back to the 3.5 version of the rules, and I like them a lot!

I'm about to start a small campaign (first time DMing) and will probably set it going in my 'own' area... However, I've got loads of the old 2nd edition material, including the FR Campaign Setting.

What I wanted to do was start small - but somewhere within the Realms. To begin with I won't bother with any of the cities etc. However, I want the original setting to fit somewhere on the map.

Is the older material OK for now? Has the new CS changed so much that my old maps won't be any of use? Once I get going I'll probably buy the new version.

Cheers, Gav
Unamis
08-16-05, 08:59 AM Are you kidding us? :P
There's practically a cult of old-timers here, worshiping the lore of 2ed books, while the same time ridiculing the new 3e books.
As far as I know, the big differences are some novel events, return of Bane and the new rulesystem. So yes, by all means your old books are useful. Often even better.
But to catch up, I suggest the 3e Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting or Player's Guide to Faerun. PGtF sums up the big events of major novels, so if you haven't read many novels lately, it's very useful.
GothicDan
08-16-05, 10:11 AM Actually, there are some really major thematic differences in 3E besides the novel events and the ruleset.

I actually have no problem with the 3E ruleset, in theory. It's simply when it's been applied to FR that it seems like they slice and dice the setting's consistency to get it to fit well. -That- I don't like.

All hail 2E FR sourcebooks. ;)
Kuje31
08-16-05, 01:55 PM Are you kidding us? :P
There's practically a cult of old-timers here, worshiping the lore of 2ed books, while the same time ridiculing the new 3e books.

HAHAHA. :)

And to the poster: Yes, WOTC changed the maps. Some places disappeared, some places shifted rivers, some places were moved, etc, because they shifted the whole world northwest.

As for the use of the old material, of course it's still useful and I'm one of the "cult" that worships the old lore. The rules changed, but a lot of the npc's, especially those with short stats, can still be used. Most of the old lore is still useful because it hasn't been expanded or changed or updated.
Faraer
08-16-05, 02:07 PM The new map changes some distances, much more in the south and east rather than the core Realms, but that doesn't affect the lore: the same places exist and the same people who did the same things. There have been retcons, but they're very minor in the scheme of things. Any given piece of lore is almost certainly valid in the current Realms. You don't have any good reason to switch to the new map at all, though, and we won't until there are a lot more of them using the revised (for the purposes of fitting as much land on one poster map!) geography.
Demetrios
08-16-05, 08:19 PM Hi all,

It's been a while since I last played D&D - about 10 years maybe. I've come back to the 3.5 version of the rules, and I like them a lot!

I'm about to start a small campaign (first time DMing) and will probably set it going in my 'own' area... However, I've got loads of the old 2nd edition material, including the FR Campaign Setting.

What I wanted to do was start small - but somewhere within the Realms. To begin with I won't bother with any of the cities etc. However, I want the original setting to fit somewhere on the map.

Is the older material OK for now? Has the new CS changed so much that my old maps won't be any of use? Once I get going I'll probably buy the new version.

Cheers, Gav

99% of the older material will be fine to use. The map differences really don't matter if you have the old maps - you can continue to use the old maps without difficulty even with more recent material. Virtually everything else that changed is merely the result of the timeline advancing a few years and the events that occured therein (with a few notable exceptions - mostly having to do with the monstrous deities and the planes - and these changes can be easily ignored by the FR veteran).

Basically, you should invest in the new campaign setting book (refered to around here as the FRCS) and the Player's Guide to Faerun so you will know the current edition's setting-specific rules for the Realms and to update you on the recent changes and events in the setting. Beyond that, any further purchases are entirely dependent upon your wants and needs.
warlockco
08-17-05, 01:50 AM Old Material is always of use, even when it does get Retconned.
GavinHope
08-17-05, 04:11 AM Thanks everyone :)

I was looking through all the old stuff last night - great!

Gav
dragonfriend
08-17-05, 04:37 AM Old material is GOLD! for every FR fan
bobsan
08-17-05, 12:28 PM ::Joins the Cult of Old timers::

Heck my first FR product ever was the City of splendors Box Set. Still use it to this day with the new book.

Though I beleive my most used old school book is Aurora's Wholesale realms. A book no Gm should be without (unless you can't find it ^_^ )
marylou
08-18-05, 05:39 PM I am new to the gaming world and I am looking for a conversion sheet for 2.0 to 3.0 within the Forgotten Realms. Is there anything out there that I can use?
Thank you,
Marylou
GothicDan
08-18-05, 07:11 PM The majority of stuff doesn't need converting. To what are you referring, specifically? NPCs? Spells?
Kuje31
08-18-05, 07:25 PM I am new to the gaming world and I am looking for a conversion sheet for 2.0 to 3.0 within the Forgotten Realms. Is there anything out there that I can use?
Thank you,
Marylou

There was a booklet that WOTC put out and also on the web page.... let me see if I can find it.

Well, it might be on this page:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20030718a
Moscone
08-18-05, 07:51 PM The old material is full of more comprehensive info than the newer stuff, and I'm kicking myself for trading most of it in- like my old Planescape stuff. While the new Manual of the Planes is a good book, it doesn't have nearly half the stuff you'd find in the PS boxed sets. Ah well, I've begun tracking all that stuff down again...
GothicDan
08-18-05, 09:21 PM Planescape!!!

Ahem.

I should really reread my Planes of ________ sets.
death_hand_of
08-23-05, 02:30 AM A person I know is a hardened D&D veteran, he's got a lot of the old material and thinks the new 3 and 3.5 stuff ruined the game.
marylou
08-23-05, 09:14 AM The majority of stuff doesn't need converting. To what are you referring, specifically? NPCs? Spells?

Both would be great if they exist. Is there a site that I can go to for them?
Thanks
Marylou
GothicDan
08-23-05, 12:46 PM They are in the FR supplements. On the other hand, there are 2E characters who have not yet been converted, which our posters here have given their best shots at in the NPCs forum. Though, unless you're going to have said NPCs battle PCs, there's really no point in converting them. As for the spells, the 3E equivalents tend to suck - but that's because, in general, spellcasters in 3E suck compared to those in 2E. All of the Simbul's spells, for instance, now suck horrendously.
babysamurai
08-24-05, 11:22 AM I have all the old 1st and 2nd edition Realms products, and while the 3rd edition rules are by far the best (IMO), nothing beats the glory of the old fluff.
Yom Beekus
08-24-05, 03:03 PM I have all the old 1st and 2nd edition Realms products, and while the 3rd edition rules are by far the best (IMO), nothing beats the glory of the old fluff.

I have to agree...the fluff was great!
Kid SixXx
08-24-05, 08:26 PM The human race suffers from a mental disease that tells us, "Old = great, regardless of its failings, and new = evil, regardless of its merits."

Of course, it helps when your new stuff is compliant with established lore so that everyone is on the same page of music.

There would be no need for dependance on older material if the new stuff was... consistant... for lack of a better term. You will need the older material to help make sense of the haphazard manner in which material is dealt with in newer volumes.

Having the new FRCS make a blatant reference to Spelljamming when the new cosmology does not even acknowledge crystal spheres, or set up an adventure in Dungeon magazine featuring Slaadi when your cosmology does not even recognize Limbo, is no way to run a railroad.
Junon Ghostblade
08-27-05, 12:21 PM Having the new FRCS make a blatant reference to Spelljamming when the new cosmology does not even acknowledge crystal spheres, or set up an adventure in Dungeon magazine featuring Slaadi when your cosmology does not even recognize Limbo, is no way to run a railroad.

You obviously have never heard of the Spelljamming book Realmsphere where they actually connect it to the Forgotten Realms.

Or how about Elves of Evermeet, where they are known for greeting Imperial Elven Spelljamming Navy ships.

Just because the new Cosmology doesn't reference it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Faraer
08-27-05, 03:39 PM The Realms has many Spelljammer connections: SJR2 Realmspace, but also the first Spelljammer sourcebook SJR1 Lost Ships by Ed Greenwood himself, Undermountain: Stardock, Monarch's Fall Glade, and so on. The current books don't mention Spelljammer much simply as there's no product line, not because the Realms has been deSpelljammered.

Once again, the planes set out in the FRCS are only *some* of the planes accessible from the Realms -- those specifically concerned with the Faerūnian gods.
Kid SixXx
08-27-05, 06:20 PM You obviously have never heard of the Spelljamming book Realmsphere where they actually connect it to the Forgotten Realms.

Or how about Elves of Evermeet, where they are known for greeting Imperial Elven Spelljamming Navy ships.

Just because the new Cosmology doesn't reference it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I'm aware of those books. My point is that the retcon often flies in the face of established material, almost as if it attempts to overwrite material established from previous editions of the setting.

Some folks will care about this, and others won't give a hoot. I personally don't think that either side is wrong for believing the way that they believe.

As you have so generously stated, you are partial to the old stuff so you've taken a "just because it's not expressly stated doesn't make it invalid." approach, while some will take an "if I don't see it, it's not there" approach.

Where will these spelljamming Elven navy ships go in the new cosmology? There aren't supposed to be any crystal spheres, or at least there don't appear to be any?

Your answer? "But there used to be crystal spheres in older editions!"

My reply? "Why should 2ed stuff matter in my 3.5 setting?"

Hence the continuing debate.

I don't think that you necessarily have to be a total Realms scholar (ie. include every single shred of info from nearly two decades of development) in order to run a proper campaign, but there are people who believe that you do.

I think you need to be a Realms scholar in order to properly discuss events as they relate to the setting (especially on this board where you'll get tarred & fethered for inattention to even the most minute historical details), but not merely to run your own campaign.
GothicDan
08-27-05, 07:37 PM The human race suffers from a mental disease that tells us, "Old = great, regardless of its failings, and new = evil, regardless of its merits."

And what about those of us who prefer the stuff that is older than we are?
Kid SixXx
08-27-05, 08:30 PM And what about those of us who prefer the stuff that is older than we are?

Ask yourself if you prefer the material because of nostaligia or because of relevance.

Given the confusing state of some current material (especially the retconned material), the older stuff is sometimes more relevant than the newer material.

Naturally that is all relative depending on whom you ask. Some folks could care less that Xara Tantlor is currently an evil NPC, while others will wail and gnash their teeth at the alleged inconsistancy.
Kuje31
08-27-05, 08:41 PM Ask yourself if you prefer the material because of nostaligia or because of relevance.

Given the confusing state of some current material (especially the retconned material), the older stuff is sometimes more relevant than the newer material.

Naturally that is all relative depending on whom you ask. Some folks could care less that Xara Tantlor is currently an evil NPC, while others will wail and gnash their teeth at the alleged inconsistancy.

For me? It's because of relevance. I hardly touch 3/3.5e material because it's not relevant since most of it is rehash and there's no way WOTC can pack 150+ sourcebook and 150+ novel info into current sourcebooks. Let's take the new Waterdeep sourcebook for example. It's a good sourcebook, but there's tons of material that was left out of it that can be found in the older revelant lore of 1e and 2e.

However, I'm not saying I don't use 3/3.5e lore, because I do! But I repeatedly return to my 1e and 2e sourcebooks because they are filled with more lore that is more relevant since it hasn't been updated or changed.
Xavier_of_Cormyr
08-27-05, 11:15 PM anyone remember the 1e FR boxed set? It came with the hexagon transparency sheets which were GREAT, and still IMO, was the best fluffy & artistic old edition book printed.
GothicDan
08-27-05, 11:38 PM Ask yourself if you prefer the material because of nostaligia or because of relevance.

How can I be nostalgic about stuff that I experienced at the same time that I did the current stuff? ;) In this case, it's 1E vs. Late 2E (when I got into FR). I prefer much of 1E merely due to analysis. Having never even played FR myself, there's nothing for me, personally, to feel nostalgic about.

While I know that you weren't singling anyone out, I just always find myself with a twinge of amusement when some try to claim that the true reason why old-timers think that the old material is better is due to nostalgia. No, it's just better.
Kuje31
08-27-05, 11:47 PM anyone remember the 1e FR boxed set? It came with the hexagon transparency sheets which were GREAT, and still IMO, was the best fluffy & artistic old edition book printed.

Yup, yup. I love my Old Gray Box as well as 2e's campaign box.
Alac Luin
08-27-05, 11:51 PM I am somewhat of an old timer.

I like the 3.X ruleset much better.

When it comes to the "feel" of things (AKA Fluff) the old material was much better.

I resent that the "Ecology" and "Society" sections of the monster entries do not exist in 3.X. Thats just one example.
warlockco
08-27-05, 11:52 PM When it comes to the "feel" of things (AKA Fluff) the old material was much better.

I resent that the "Ecology" and "Society" sections of the monster entries do not exist in 3.X. Thats just one example.

Would have to agree that.
Junon Ghostblade
08-28-05, 12:50 PM I'm aware of those books. My point is that the retcon often flies in the face of established material, almost as if it attempts to overwrite material established from previous editions of the setting.

Some folks will care about this, and others won't give a hoot. I personally don't think that either side is wrong for believing the way that they believe.

As you have so generously stated, you are partial to the old stuff so you've taken a "just because it's not expressly stated doesn't make it invalid." approach, while some will take an "if I don't see it, it's not there" approach.

Where will these spelljamming Elven navy ships go in the new cosmology? There aren't supposed to be any crystal spheres, or at least there don't appear to be any?

Your answer? "But there used to be crystal spheres in older editions!"

My reply? "Why should 2ed stuff matter in my 3.5 setting?"

Hence the continuing debate.

I don't think that you necessarily have to be a total Realms scholar (ie. include every single shred of info from nearly two decades of development) in order to run a proper campaign, but there are people who believe that you do.

I think you need to be a Realms scholar in order to properly discuss events as they relate to the setting (especially on this board where you'll get tarred & fethered for inattention to even the most minute historical details), but not merely to run your own campaign.

I agree, with the release of 3 and 3.5 it could be said simply that there are no longer crystal spheres but solar systems that are technically part of the prime material planes they are connected to.

Who knows, it may be interesting to see what they do in regards to spelljamming stuff, if anything.
Xavier_of_Cormyr
08-28-05, 02:27 PM nostalgia or not, the old material has a certain flavor to them, that we all now call "fluff". Nowadays gamers complain that WotC doesn't have enuff fluff in their products, and that's because we have webpages now with monthly fluff articles by Ed G. In the old days, fluff had to be printed into the books. I'm still not sure which I prefer.
Alac Luin
08-28-05, 07:42 PM Would have to agree that.

I notice you only agree with the 2nd half of my statement. :rofl:
Kid SixXx
08-28-05, 08:15 PM While I know that you weren't singling anyone out, I just always find myself with a twinge of amusement when some try to claim that the true reason why old-timers think that the old material is better is due to nostalgia. No, it's just better.

Again, "better" is a relevant term.

Personally, I prefer the older material to the new as I think that fluff should walk hand in hand with crunch, if not supercede it. Fluff helps lay out why things should happen, or shouldn't happen, in a meaningful, logical manner.

Sure, mechanics say that I can build a Dwarven Monk, and there is a distinct possiblity that Dwarves might in fact have some sort of martial arts tradition.

But are the martial arts something that comes to mind when someone thinks, "Dwarf"? Probably not.

Some schools of thought will villify me for saying that there should be no Dwarven monks because my point-of-view hampers creativity. Others will agree with me because, "Gimli has never used a flying crescent kick in combat... ever... It's just something Dwarves don't do."

Or do they?

And the debate rages on.
warlockco
08-28-05, 08:23 PM I notice you only agree with the 2nd half of my statement. :rofl:

There are times the 3.x rules just immensely irk me. And didn't realize I had cut off the old timer part. :D :P
Alac Luin
08-28-05, 09:38 PM There are times the 3.x rules just immensely irk me. And didn't realize I had cut off the old timer part. :D :P

Trust me, I'm not bothered by cutting of the “old timer” part, as I hate to admit my age to myself. :P

To me, it's not the 3.X rules that bother me, but what aspects of the flexibility lead to that bother me.
That and this same flexibility is not taken advantage of to better simulate the story as established.
(over abundance of new PrCs, while failing to translate old "kits" and stuff successfully)

To me, its not the rule set, it's the translation.
shadevarr
08-31-05, 10:16 AM We have the big map of FR from the 2nd ed box set on the wall in the gaming room as well as the planescape planar topography. I just can't swallow the new cosmology after spending so many years running planescape so I just keep the cosmology as it was in 2nd ed....aside from just sticking to the old maps I overall love 3.5, especially since I can't feel guilty anymore about letting PC's buy Volo's guides that are 10+ years out of date. (Yes, I actually hand out the books to the players when their PCs buy one)

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
GavinHope 08-16-05, 08:20 AM	Hi all, It's been a while since I last played D&D - about 10 years maybe. I've come back to the 3.5 version of the rules, and I like them a lot! I'm about to start a small campaign (first time DMing) and will probably set it going in my 'own' area... However, I've got loads of the old 2nd edition material, including the FR Campaign Setting. What I wanted to do was start small - but somewhere within the Realms. To begin with I won't bother with any of the cities etc. However, I want the original setting to fit somewhere on the map. Is the older material OK for now? Has the new CS changed so much that my old maps won't be any of use? Once I get going I'll probably buy the new version. Cheers, Gav
Unamis 08-16-05, 08:59 AM	Are you kidding us? :P There's practically a cult of old-timers here, worshiping the lore of 2ed books, while the same time ridiculing the new 3e books. As far as I know, the big differences are some novel events, return of Bane and the new rulesystem. So yes, by all means your old books are useful. Often even better. But to catch up, I suggest the 3e Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting or Player's Guide to Faerun. PGtF sums up the big events of major novels, so if you haven't read many novels lately, it's very useful.
GothicDan 08-16-05, 10:11 AM	Actually, there are some really major thematic differences in 3E besides the novel events and the ruleset. I actually have no problem with the 3E ruleset, in theory. It's simply when it's been applied to FR that it seems like they slice and dice the setting's consistency to get it to fit well. -That- I don't like. All hail 2E FR sourcebooks. ;)
Kuje31 08-16-05, 01:55 PM	Are you kidding us? :P There's practically a cult of old-timers here, worshiping the lore of 2ed books, while the same time ridiculing the new 3e books. HAHAHA. :) And to the poster: Yes, WOTC changed the maps. Some places disappeared, some places shifted rivers, some places were moved, etc, because they shifted the whole world northwest. As for the use of the old material, of course it's still useful and I'm one of the "cult" that worships the old lore. The rules changed, but a lot of the npc's, especially those with short stats, can still be used. Most of the old lore is still useful because it hasn't been expanded or changed or updated.
Faraer 08-16-05, 02:07 PM	The new map changes some distances, much more in the south and east rather than the core Realms, but that doesn't affect the lore: the same places exist and the same people who did the same things. There have been retcons, but they're very minor in the scheme of things. Any given piece of lore is almost certainly valid in the current Realms. You don't have any good reason to switch to the new map at all, though, and we won't until there are a lot more of them using the revised (for the purposes of fitting as much land on one poster map!) geography.
Demetrios 08-16-05, 08:19 PM	Hi all, It's been a while since I last played D&D - about 10 years maybe. I've come back to the 3.5 version of the rules, and I like them a lot! I'm about to start a small campaign (first time DMing) and will probably set it going in my 'own' area... However, I've got loads of the old 2nd edition material, including the FR Campaign Setting. What I wanted to do was start small - but somewhere within the Realms. To begin with I won't bother with any of the cities etc. However, I want the original setting to fit somewhere on the map. Is the older material OK for now? Has the new CS changed so much that my old maps won't be any of use? Once I get going I'll probably buy the new version. Cheers, Gav 99% of the older material will be fine to use. The map differences really don't matter if you have the old maps - you can continue to use the old maps without difficulty even with more recent material. Virtually everything else that changed is merely the result of the timeline advancing a few years and the events that occured therein (with a few notable exceptions - mostly having to do with the monstrous deities and the planes - and these changes can be easily ignored by the FR veteran). Basically, you should invest in the new campaign setting book (refered to around here as the FRCS) and the Player's Guide to Faerun so you will know the current edition's setting-specific rules for the Realms and to update you on the recent changes and events in the setting. Beyond that, any further purchases are entirely dependent upon your wants and needs.
warlockco 08-17-05, 01:50 AM	Old Material is always of use, even when it does get Retconned.
GavinHope 08-17-05, 04:11 AM	Thanks everyone :) I was looking through all the old stuff last night - great! Gav
dragonfriend 08-17-05, 04:37 AM	Old material is GOLD! for every FR fan
bobsan 08-17-05, 12:28 PM	::Joins the Cult of Old timers:: Heck my first FR product ever was the City of splendors Box Set. Still use it to this day with the new book. Though I beleive my most used old school book is Aurora's Wholesale realms. A book no Gm should be without (unless you can't find it ^_^ )
marylou 08-18-05, 05:39 PM	I am new to the gaming world and I am looking for a conversion sheet for 2.0 to 3.0 within the Forgotten Realms. Is there anything out there that I can use? Thank you, Marylou
GothicDan 08-18-05, 07:11 PM	The majority of stuff doesn't need converting. To what are you referring, specifically? NPCs? Spells?
Kuje31 08-18-05, 07:25 PM	I am new to the gaming world and I am looking for a conversion sheet for 2.0 to 3.0 within the Forgotten Realms. Is there anything out there that I can use? Thank you, Marylou There was a booklet that WOTC put out and also on the web page.... let me see if I can find it. Well, it might be on this page: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20030718a
Moscone 08-18-05, 07:51 PM	The old material is full of more comprehensive info than the newer stuff, and I'm kicking myself for trading most of it in- like my old Planescape stuff. While the new Manual of the Planes is a good book, it doesn't have nearly half the stuff you'd find in the PS boxed sets. Ah well, I've begun tracking all that stuff down again...
GothicDan 08-18-05, 09:21 PM	Planescape!!! Ahem. I should really reread my Planes of ________ sets.
death_hand_of 08-23-05, 02:30 AM	A person I know is a hardened D&D veteran, he's got a lot of the old material and thinks the new 3 and 3.5 stuff ruined the game.
marylou 08-23-05, 09:14 AM	The majority of stuff doesn't need converting. To what are you referring, specifically? NPCs? Spells? Both would be great if they exist. Is there a site that I can go to for them? Thanks Marylou
GothicDan 08-23-05, 12:46 PM	They are in the FR supplements. On the other hand, there are 2E characters who have not yet been converted, which our posters here have given their best shots at in the NPCs forum. Though, unless you're going to have said NPCs battle PCs, there's really no point in converting them. As for the spells, the 3E equivalents tend to suck - but that's because, in general, spellcasters in 3E suck compared to those in 2E. All of the Simbul's spells, for instance, now suck horrendously.
babysamurai 08-24-05, 11:22 AM	I have all the old 1st and 2nd edition Realms products, and while the 3rd edition rules are by far the best (IMO), nothing beats the glory of the old fluff.
Yom Beekus 08-24-05, 03:03 PM	I have all the old 1st and 2nd edition Realms products, and while the 3rd edition rules are by far the best (IMO), nothing beats the glory of the old fluff. I have to agree...the fluff was great!
Kid SixXx 08-24-05, 08:26 PM	The human race suffers from a mental disease that tells us, "Old = great, regardless of its failings, and new = evil, regardless of its merits." Of course, it helps when your new stuff is compliant with established lore so that everyone is on the same page of music. There would be no need for dependance on older material if the new stuff was... consistant... for lack of a better term. You will need the older material to help make sense of the haphazard manner in which material is dealt with in newer volumes. Having the new FRCS make a blatant reference to Spelljamming when the new cosmology does not even acknowledge crystal spheres, or set up an adventure in Dungeon magazine featuring Slaadi when your cosmology does not even recognize Limbo, is no way to run a railroad.
Junon Ghostblade 08-27-05, 12:21 PM	Having the new FRCS make a blatant reference to Spelljamming when the new cosmology does not even acknowledge crystal spheres, or set up an adventure in Dungeon magazine featuring Slaadi when your cosmology does not even recognize Limbo, is no way to run a railroad. You obviously have never heard of the Spelljamming book Realmsphere where they actually connect it to the Forgotten Realms. Or how about Elves of Evermeet, where they are known for greeting Imperial Elven Spelljamming Navy ships. Just because the new Cosmology doesn't reference it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Faraer 08-27-05, 03:39 PM	The Realms has many Spelljammer connections: SJR2 Realmspace, but also the first Spelljammer sourcebook SJR1 Lost Ships by Ed Greenwood himself, Undermountain: Stardock, Monarch's Fall Glade, and so on. The current books don't mention Spelljammer much simply as there's no product line, not because the Realms has been deSpelljammered. Once again, the planes set out in the FRCS are only some of the planes accessible from the Realms -- those specifically concerned with the Faerūnian gods.
Kid SixXx 08-27-05, 06:20 PM	You obviously have never heard of the Spelljamming book Realmsphere where they actually connect it to the Forgotten Realms. Or how about Elves of Evermeet, where they are known for greeting Imperial Elven Spelljamming Navy ships. Just because the new Cosmology doesn't reference it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I'm aware of those books. My point is that the retcon often flies in the face of established material, almost as if it attempts to overwrite material established from previous editions of the setting. Some folks will care about this, and others won't give a hoot. I personally don't think that either side is wrong for believing the way that they believe. As you have so generously stated, you are partial to the old stuff so you've taken a "just because it's not expressly stated doesn't make it invalid." approach, while some will take an "if I don't see it, it's not there" approach. Where will these spelljamming Elven navy ships go in the new cosmology? There aren't supposed to be any crystal spheres, or at least there don't appear to be any? Your answer? "But there used to be crystal spheres in older editions!" My reply? "Why should 2ed stuff matter in my 3.5 setting?" Hence the continuing debate. I don't think that you necessarily have to be a total Realms scholar (ie. include every single shred of info from nearly two decades of development) in order to run a proper campaign, but there are people who believe that you do. I think you need to be a Realms scholar in order to properly discuss events as they relate to the setting (especially on this board where you'll get tarred & fethered for inattention to even the most minute historical details), but not merely to run your own campaign.
GothicDan 08-27-05, 07:37 PM	The human race suffers from a mental disease that tells us, "Old = great, regardless of its failings, and new = evil, regardless of its merits." And what about those of us who prefer the stuff that is older than we are?
Kid SixXx 08-27-05, 08:30 PM	And what about those of us who prefer the stuff that is older than we are? Ask yourself if you prefer the material because of nostaligia or because of relevance. Given the confusing state of some current material (especially the retconned material), the older stuff is sometimes more relevant than the newer material. Naturally that is all relative depending on whom you ask. Some folks could care less that Xara Tantlor is currently an evil NPC, while others will wail and gnash their teeth at the alleged inconsistancy.
Kuje31 08-27-05, 08:41 PM	Ask yourself if you prefer the material because of nostaligia or because of relevance. Given the confusing state of some current material (especially the retconned material), the older stuff is sometimes more relevant than the newer material. Naturally that is all relative depending on whom you ask. Some folks could care less that Xara Tantlor is currently an evil NPC, while others will wail and gnash their teeth at the alleged inconsistancy. For me? It's because of relevance. I hardly touch 3/3.5e material because it's not relevant since most of it is rehash and there's no way WOTC can pack 150+ sourcebook and 150+ novel info into current sourcebooks. Let's take the new Waterdeep sourcebook for example. It's a good sourcebook, but there's tons of material that was left out of it that can be found in the older revelant lore of 1e and 2e. However, I'm not saying I don't use 3/3.5e lore, because I do! But I repeatedly return to my 1e and 2e sourcebooks because they are filled with more lore that is more relevant since it hasn't been updated or changed.
Xavier_of_Cormyr 08-27-05, 11:15 PM	anyone remember the 1e FR boxed set? It came with the hexagon transparency sheets which were GREAT, and still IMO, was the best fluffy & artistic old edition book printed.
GothicDan 08-27-05, 11:38 PM	Ask yourself if you prefer the material because of nostaligia or because of relevance. How can I be nostalgic about stuff that I experienced at the same time that I did the current stuff? ;) In this case, it's 1E vs. Late 2E (when I got into FR). I prefer much of 1E merely due to analysis. Having never even played FR myself, there's nothing for me, personally, to feel nostalgic about. While I know that you weren't singling anyone out, I just always find myself with a twinge of amusement when some try to claim that the true reason why old-timers think that the old material is better is due to nostalgia. No, it's just better.
Kuje31 08-27-05, 11:47 PM	anyone remember the 1e FR boxed set? It came with the hexagon transparency sheets which were GREAT, and still IMO, was the best fluffy & artistic old edition book printed. Yup, yup. I love my Old Gray Box as well as 2e's campaign box.
Alac Luin 08-27-05, 11:51 PM	I am somewhat of an old timer. I like the 3.X ruleset much better. When it comes to the "feel" of things (AKA Fluff) the old material was much better. I resent that the "Ecology" and "Society" sections of the monster entries do not exist in 3.X. Thats just one example.
warlockco 08-27-05, 11:52 PM	When it comes to the "feel" of things (AKA Fluff) the old material was much better. I resent that the "Ecology" and "Society" sections of the monster entries do not exist in 3.X. Thats just one example. Would have to agree that.
Junon Ghostblade 08-28-05, 12:50 PM	I'm aware of those books. My point is that the retcon often flies in the face of established material, almost as if it attempts to overwrite material established from previous editions of the setting. Some folks will care about this, and others won't give a hoot. I personally don't think that either side is wrong for believing the way that they believe. As you have so generously stated, you are partial to the old stuff so you've taken a "just because it's not expressly stated doesn't make it invalid." approach, while some will take an "if I don't see it, it's not there" approach. Where will these spelljamming Elven navy ships go in the new cosmology? There aren't supposed to be any crystal spheres, or at least there don't appear to be any? Your answer? "But there used to be crystal spheres in older editions!" My reply? "Why should 2ed stuff matter in my 3.5 setting?" Hence the continuing debate. I don't think that you necessarily have to be a total Realms scholar (ie. include every single shred of info from nearly two decades of development) in order to run a proper campaign, but there are people who believe that you do. I think you need to be a Realms scholar in order to properly discuss events as they relate to the setting (especially on this board where you'll get tarred & fethered for inattention to even the most minute historical details), but not merely to run your own campaign. I agree, with the release of 3 and 3.5 it could be said simply that there are no longer crystal spheres but solar systems that are technically part of the prime material planes they are connected to. Who knows, it may be interesting to see what they do in regards to spelljamming stuff, if anything.
Xavier_of_Cormyr 08-28-05, 02:27 PM	nostalgia or not, the old material has a certain flavor to them, that we all now call "fluff". Nowadays gamers complain that WotC doesn't have enuff fluff in their products, and that's because we have webpages now with monthly fluff articles by Ed G. In the old days, fluff had to be printed into the books. I'm still not sure which I prefer.
Alac Luin 08-28-05, 07:42 PM	Would have to agree that. I notice you only agree with the 2nd half of my statement. :rofl:
Kid SixXx 08-28-05, 08:15 PM	While I know that you weren't singling anyone out, I just always find myself with a twinge of amusement when some try to claim that the true reason why old-timers think that the old material is better is due to nostalgia. No, it's just better. Again, "better" is a relevant term. Personally, I prefer the older material to the new as I think that fluff should walk hand in hand with crunch, if not supercede it. Fluff helps lay out why things should happen, or shouldn't happen, in a meaningful, logical manner. Sure, mechanics say that I can build a Dwarven Monk, and there is a distinct possiblity that Dwarves might in fact have some sort of martial arts tradition. But are the martial arts something that comes to mind when someone thinks, "Dwarf"? Probably not. Some schools of thought will villify me for saying that there should be no Dwarven monks because my point-of-view hampers creativity. Others will agree with me because, "Gimli has never used a flying crescent kick in combat... ever... It's just something Dwarves don't do." Or do they? And the debate rages on.
warlockco 08-28-05, 08:23 PM	I notice you only agree with the 2nd half of my statement. :rofl: There are times the 3.x rules just immensely irk me. And didn't realize I had cut off the old timer part. :D :P
Alac Luin 08-28-05, 09:38 PM	There are times the 3.x rules just immensely irk me. And didn't realize I had cut off the old timer part. :D :P Trust me, I'm not bothered by cutting of the “old timer” part, as I hate to admit my age to myself. :P To me, it's not the 3.X rules that bother me, but what aspects of the flexibility lead to that bother me. That and this same flexibility is not taken advantage of to better simulate the story as established. (over abundance of new PrCs, while failing to translate old "kits" and stuff successfully) To me, its not the rule set, it's the translation.
shadevarr 08-31-05, 10:16 AM	We have the big map of FR from the 2nd ed box set on the wall in the gaming room as well as the planescape planar topography. I just can't swallow the new cosmology after spending so many years running planescape so I just keep the cosmology as it was in 2nd ed....aside from just sticking to the old maps I overall love 3.5, especially since I can't feel guilty anymore about letting PC's buy Volo's guides that are 10+ years out of date. (Yes, I actually hand out the books to the players when their PCs buy one)