Cael
Arcane
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2017
- Messages
- 22,201
Wait... There are people claiming that the Avatar Crisis wasn't done to explain the transition from 1st to 2nd? Like the Spellplague was specifically done to explain the transition from 3.5 to 4th?https://twitter.com/TDenningauthor/status/1137860389755072512The whole Time of Troubles affair was basically an in-setting justification for the changes in AD&D from 1e to 2e
AFAIK was no change between 1st and 2nd editions with regards to gods, if anything the 2nd edition took the idea of killing a god off the table - an idea which did exist in 1st edition.
After all, 2nd edition was not a re-write like the munchkin 3rd edition was, but a polished, marketable, organized and playtested 1st edition. The rules are the same between them, the tables are the same, the classes are the same - with some minor nips and tucks. It's perfectly reasonable to consider the 1st and 2nd edition to be the same game and the denomination 2nd edition fits very well.
The Times of Trouble affair was written with much fanfare from TSR, to change the setting, so TSR had a plausible reason to sell the Forgotten Realms setting again (now in a gold box!) and all the new source books. The map changed, new characters were introduced, the factions evolved and so on.
The Avatar trilogy was not written to clarify gods in the FR or their relationship with 2nd edition AD&D.
It was written for marketing reasons, to encourage people to buy the 2nd edition FR boxed set, because otherwise there wouldn't be a reason to do that - the difference between 1st and 2nd edition AD&D didn't really affect the FR setting.
Seriously? That is some boneheaded deliberate ignorance right there...