Are the Realms "too diverse"? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Are the Realms "too diverse"? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Godagast
08-22-03, 08:28 PM I'm probably going to raise a controversial topic here, but I think it's worth discussing about, and I would be very interested to hear some opinions on it. To clarify, I'm not out to "bash" our beloved Forgotten Realms here - actually, I'm a big fan of much of the work that has been done for the setting. Still, I feel a point can be made that there's "too much of a good thing" to go around.

As the "What is the Realms?" section says, the short introduction on the official site here: "The Realms encompasses both one fantasy world and all fantasy worlds. Whatever you look for in fantasy can be found on Faerun, the setting of the Forgotten Realms game." And when one looks at the various sourcebooks, it becomes apparent that this is indeed the design philosophy behind the setting - it's supposed to encompass everything, and more. And while that is certainly the biggest strength of the setting and one of the reasons for its popularity and wide appeal, I feel a point can be made that, arguably, it's also its biggest weakness.

It starts normally enough: there are all the trappings of classic fantasy, the shining knights and mysterious mages, the short-lived yet ambitious humans, the dour and taciturn dwarves in their kingdoms under the mountain, the aloof elves in their island beyond the western sea. The usual sources - I find Evermeet borrows more than a few aspects of Tolkien's Valinor, actually. Then there are a few old D&D favourites like the Drow of the Underdark or the inventive gnome tinkers, which are not straight out of the Tolkien traditon, but fit in well enough. So far, it's rather homogenous.

Now, add to that a whole series of predominantly human cultures that are lifted straight out of real history, often with only the slightest modification: Calimshan is obviously Arabia, not the historical one, of course, but with lots of elements straight out of 1001 nights - sultans, harems, djinn, efreet, flying carpets, decadent luxuries. Then there's the ancient Egyptians (Mulhorandi), complete with pyramids, elaborate burial rites and their very Egyptian pantheon of Horus, Osiris, Isis, Seth and others. Then there's the Mongols under their Khan leader (the Horde), who tried to invade Europe (make that "Western Faerun") and were repelled by a Western coalition force (another historic parallel). Then there's the Aztecs in Maztica, and feudal Japan and China of Kara-Tur. And so forth.

It's not that I disapprove of any of these cultures per se, but I sometimes feel that they were thrown in rather carelessly. It's as if the designers of the setting, in the declared aim to make the Realms ever more universal and all-encompassing, dragged everything they could possibly get their hands on into their world, sometimes without bothering to add any truly original ideas to this second-hand shop of historical cultures, and often with seemingly little concern about whether or not the end result would really "fit together" as a genuine, cohesive setting. In my view, often enough, it does not, but rather produces a sort of indigestion from overdose. Too many cooks spoil the broth, and certainly, it takes a robust stomach to take in food from Medieval Europe, fairy-tale Arabia, ancient Egypt, nomadic Mongols and feudal China all thrown into one pot.

The same overkill can be observed among the sheer infinite number of gods, goddesses and demi-powers. That's not even a merely personal concern of mine - I've heard a fair number of players comment that there are "too many deities" in their opinion. If my count is correct, the 3E FRCS lists 57 deities for the Faerunian pantheon alone. Add to that a significant number of dead or "hibernating" gods, and of course the various pantheons of the Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, Gnomes, Drow, Mulhorandi and monstrous cultures. Now, of course it's nice, in one way, to have a deity for every little aspect of the world, as it offers great customization for clerics and temples. It also leaves a lot of room for all the baroque intrigues and squabbles among the gods that we have come to expect. But on the other hand, in my view at least, it tends to somehow take away from the importance and "divinity" of the individual powers.

For example, there are eight deities alone to govern the various aspects and forms of magic - Mystra, Azuth, Savras, Velsharoon, Shar, Isis, Thoth and Seth, and that's only the human pantheons to start with. And the creators of the Avatar trilogy seemingly fell in love with their mortal protagonists so deeply that they promptly had to promote three of them to divine rank, eventually - Midnight / Mystra, Cyric and Kelemvor. True, some of them are cool (notably Cyric, as far as I'm concerned), but again, it strikes you as a tad too much of a good thing.

Other creatures that should be rare and mysterious can also seem overdone - for example, I think the Realms have the highest "liches per capita" count of any fantasy world I know of. There's Larloch and his gang, there's the Twisted Rune, there's Szass Tam and probably quite a few other Red Wizards residing in undeath, there's the Cult of the Dragon, there's the head of the Arcane Brotherhood, there's the baelnorn of the elves, and so forth... Needless to say, I love Szass Tam, Larloch and the Cult of the Dragon - actually, they are among my favourite characters and organizations. I love liches, too. But that's exactly why I'm not eager to see everybody and his brother become one, as I feel it only detracts from the mystique of these most powerful undead. Then again, it's only an outgrowth of the trend to staff out every PC race with at least five subraces, not to mention aasimar, tieflings, genasi, orc-demons...

To be honest, I enjoy this extraordinary variety to a degree, and love the sheer limitless opportunities for developing a character. But more often than not, I wish just a little more care was applied when introducing all the new cultures, creatures and cults. Sometimes, it might be better to flesh out something that's already there instead of coming up, time and again, with an entirely new culture / deity / race / crazed conspiracy.

What I'm saying is that quality is more important than quantity, and that sometimes, less is more. Or else, when you just try to include "all fantasy worlds" imaginable just for the sake of it, you end up with no world at all - not one that has a distinctive, cohesive identity, at least. And I feel this danger is increasing with every new version of the Realms, when you follow the development of the various editions.

To be fair, the designers seem to have recognised this to an extent, and some of the more blatantly uncreative experiments of the past have quietly been consigned to the backburner - I don't hear too much talk about the native Americans of Maztica or good ol' Genghis Khan and his Horde anymore, and that's probably a good thing. But still, a lot of material is still thrown in when there was little necessity to do so, except maybe to introduce a new toy just for the sake of it. Great, but on a closer look, it might not be all that different from the other toys that were already around.

Take the Shades, for example. Sure, they are interesting enough, and the Shadow Weave and the Shadow Adepts are cool ideas - but was it really, really necessary to disturb the Archwizards of old Netheril in their eternal slumber to introduce any of that? Couldn't the same effort have been used to flesh out an already existing organization, like the Red Wizards of Thay, who seemed perfectly able to fill the "ruthless and power-hungry mages" role by themselves, at least in my book? Wasn't Netheril actually more intersting the way it was, as a thing totally lost and gone, in legend only?

Or, in anothe example, did we really have to get acquainted with Velsharoon, a stereotypical and underdeveloped excuse for an "undeath deity" if ever there was one, when Myrkul or even Jergal could have filled that role with a little tweaking? After all, Bane is back from the dead, too, so it's not as if there weren't enough resurrections to go around...

What I'm saying is, the Realms are unchallenged in quantity, no doubt about it. But maybe it's time to stop the expansion for now, or even revert some of it, so we can better concentrate on the quality. Don't get me wrong, a lot of cultures, deities and organizations are developed in excellent quality, I'm not saying it isn't there - but frankly, a fair share is pretty bleak and underdeveloped, too, and some parts are just plain redundant. Ideally, I think a game world should strike a balance somewhere between the Realms as they are now - huge, but of inconsistent quality - and settings like, say, Dragonlance, which is smaller, perhaps even too small for some tastes, but arguably more cohesive and developed in its entirety.

This is just an example of several possible ones, so please don't turn this into a "Realms vs. Dragonlance" war - as for me, I love both settings! But I also think they can both be improved, and can both learn from each other. What the Realms could learn, in my view, is that sometimes the sheer grandeur can take away from the detail, and that both need to be carefully balanced.

Long post, but hopefully an interesting one. I'd be glad to hear some opinions and comments, thanks a lot.
Jagermeister
08-22-03, 08:33 PM The variety is good, to an extent.

Sometimes it feels contrived for one reason:

The diversity is more or less there for just the sake of having diversity. The Realms was supposed to be a place that had a little bit of everything, or so I'm told. :devil:

This can be good and bad, just depends.

I like some of it, but don't use what seems contrived or out of place. It's all in the DMs portrayal and presentation.
Godagast
08-22-03, 08:47 PM I know where you're coming from, and of course, the main thing is for the DM to decide what he wants to include in his campaign. I think what I'm trying to say is, the "a little bit of everything" approach has already been done rather well, thank you very much - and some of the bright new features and expansions seem not like true additions anymore, but redundant repetitions, like a fantasy "fashion of the month". To be fair, it's not nearly as bad as it used to be in the current edition, but some of the mentality still seems to be in place. Instead, the same effort could be used to flesh out already existing and truly interesting aspects of the Realms, and the DM's might be even better off in their supply as a result.
Shyhawk
08-22-03, 09:48 PM :sad:
chris7476
08-22-03, 10:30 PM The Realms make a campaign based on any locale or environment doable. That can be very daunting though. Theoretically, you could put a huge map of the Realms on a wall and throw a dart at it and run an entire campaign wherever the dart hit.

Some of the homebrew settings I have seen seem to take this variety out of the equation. By putting some kind of limitation into the world (like low-magic, or no elves, or a water world, etc), the DM doesn't have to work as hard on deciding what type of campaign to run.

The decision-making process (as I'm finding now) can be very difficult when trying to decide on a location for a campaign in the Realms.
RatoncitoGris
08-23-03, 05:05 AM I see what yuor point is, and, even though I agree than sometimes they overdo it (you are dead right on the Shades), I don't think than the realms are too diverse, have too many gods or than all that substracts credibility. In fact, quite the opposite. Can you think on a world where there is, or have been, among other hundreds or cultures, a medieval europe, a Genghis Khan horde, a chinese and japanese culture, arabian and egyptian civilizations, a precolombine civilization, and a whole boatload of thousands of gods? A world -a whole world- is hugely diverse. The settings than I do find lacking credibility, in fact, are not the ones like th Realms, but the ones who turn around just one or two concepts
rmilsop
08-23-03, 07:10 AM The realms is vast, overwhelmingly so, and it is intended to be, because it is not just A setting, it is THE setting. The Forgotten Realms, and not just A Forgotten Realm. That is why there is so much diversity - because it is supposed to be a fantastical mirror of our own world, and not just a magified corner of it.
Mirtek
08-23-03, 08:58 AM Originally posted by Godagast
Calimshan is obviously Arabia, not the historical one, of course, but with lots of elements straight out of 1001 nights - sultans, harems, djinn, efreet, flying carpets, decadent luxuries.

While Calimshan certainly belongs to this corner as well, you forgot the main 1001 nights region of Toril, the Al-Quadim setting
Iakhovas
08-23-03, 11:02 AM I've detailed my thoughts on this topic in other threads. It is my personal belief that the variety of the setting is exactly why the Forgotten Realms has flourished. There have been countless, pseudo-european medieval D&D settings. Many have come and gone. They either are too narrow in focus (ie. Greyhawk, Dragonlance) or far too fantastic for the masses (ie. Planescape, Spelljammer, Ravenloft).
Chris24601
08-23-03, 12:59 PM While I agree to much diversity can be problem, a lot of it depends upon how the DM's use the material. If, for example, the characters flit from place to place and culture to culture in the Realms, yes it could be overwhelming.

If, on the other hand, you use the Realms as you would an encyclopedia when deciding where to set your campaign for a d20 modern game (say a detective agency in Chicago) then the wealth of flavor is great because you are almost guarenteed that you can find someplace that fits the themes and campaign elements you're looking for for your campaign.

The key to using the Realms effectively is to not use ALL of the Realms... just use enough of the world to give the campaign flavor.
lordmaxwell
08-23-03, 02:58 PM I find that I write two kinds of campaigns:

1) The campaign and campaign world exists only for this campaign. It's like a novel or trilogy that tells a story using a world to make it alive.

2) A continous campaign world, where many campaigns have existed and more will come. If you look for books like this they describe a world, and use the story as an excuse to do it. (The prime example I can think of are the horrible books about Ayla by Jean M Auel, which takes this approach to it's highest peak.)

For 1 Forgotten Realms is near worthless. For 2 FR might very well work, depending on your taste in the fantastic.

I'm not especially in love with Forgotten Realms, but it's one of the better supported campaign worlds out there, and thanks to the numerous computer games set within it I don't have to "sell" it especially hard to gamers. People who have never even played Dungeons&Dragons still tend to know what Myth Drannor is, and are drooling at a chance to go loot it. ;)

When time becomes a constraint, and lovingly crafting a home brew isn't an option any more it's pretty good. It's simple, it's fun and it's largely braindead. Perfect for an easy romp in the action movie style of easy moral choices and fantastic encounters. Just what the doctor ordered.

(The above reflect more aesthetic ideas of mine rather than any belief that The Karamazov Brothers is a superior novel compared to The Hunt for Red October in any absolute scale.)
Ilythiir
08-23-03, 05:30 PM i love the realms because i love history and i love fantasy. in the realms you can find all the great empires of our world with all the good fantasy ideas of tolkien narnia and others what makes me play in the realms is that i can choose any ancient culture and find one very much like it plus elves dwarfs magic and greeklike gods.

that said i know what your saying (your right about the shades) but as for the unfinished feeling to some of the areas in the realms i think it allows for the DM to customize i know i do alot
Veneficus
08-26-03, 03:34 PM I find that any time the game is set in FR, the other players are so familiar with the novels that they quickly come to criticize the DM for any and every little deviation from canon. I don't know the realms of the novels as well as the other people I have played with, and cannot DM in FR because of it. When I have tried, I have got countless complaints; except for the one group I was with that never read.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Godagast 08-22-03, 08:28 PM	I'm probably going to raise a controversial topic here, but I think it's worth discussing about, and I would be very interested to hear some opinions on it. To clarify, I'm not out to "bash" our beloved Forgotten Realms here - actually, I'm a big fan of much of the work that has been done for the setting. Still, I feel a point can be made that there's "too much of a good thing" to go around. As the "What is the Realms?" section says, the short introduction on the official site here: "The Realms encompasses both one fantasy world and all fantasy worlds. Whatever you look for in fantasy can be found on Faerun, the setting of the Forgotten Realms game." And when one looks at the various sourcebooks, it becomes apparent that this is indeed the design philosophy behind the setting - it's supposed to encompass everything, and more. And while that is certainly the biggest strength of the setting and one of the reasons for its popularity and wide appeal, I feel a point can be made that, arguably, it's also its biggest weakness. It starts normally enough: there are all the trappings of classic fantasy, the shining knights and mysterious mages, the short-lived yet ambitious humans, the dour and taciturn dwarves in their kingdoms under the mountain, the aloof elves in their island beyond the western sea. The usual sources - I find Evermeet borrows more than a few aspects of Tolkien's Valinor, actually. Then there are a few old D&D favourites like the Drow of the Underdark or the inventive gnome tinkers, which are not straight out of the Tolkien traditon, but fit in well enough. So far, it's rather homogenous. Now, add to that a whole series of predominantly human cultures that are lifted straight out of real history, often with only the slightest modification: Calimshan is obviously Arabia, not the historical one, of course, but with lots of elements straight out of 1001 nights - sultans, harems, djinn, efreet, flying carpets, decadent luxuries. Then there's the ancient Egyptians (Mulhorandi), complete with pyramids, elaborate burial rites and their very Egyptian pantheon of Horus, Osiris, Isis, Seth and others. Then there's the Mongols under their Khan leader (the Horde), who tried to invade Europe (make that "Western Faerun") and were repelled by a Western coalition force (another historic parallel). Then there's the Aztecs in Maztica, and feudal Japan and China of Kara-Tur. And so forth. It's not that I disapprove of any of these cultures per se, but I sometimes feel that they were thrown in rather carelessly. It's as if the designers of the setting, in the declared aim to make the Realms ever more universal and all-encompassing, dragged everything they could possibly get their hands on into their world, sometimes without bothering to add any truly original ideas to this second-hand shop of historical cultures, and often with seemingly little concern about whether or not the end result would really "fit together" as a genuine, cohesive setting. In my view, often enough, it does not, but rather produces a sort of indigestion from overdose. Too many cooks spoil the broth, and certainly, it takes a robust stomach to take in food from Medieval Europe, fairy-tale Arabia, ancient Egypt, nomadic Mongols and feudal China all thrown into one pot. The same overkill can be observed among the sheer infinite number of gods, goddesses and demi-powers. That's not even a merely personal concern of mine - I've heard a fair number of players comment that there are "too many deities" in their opinion. If my count is correct, the 3E FRCS lists 57 deities for the Faerunian pantheon alone. Add to that a significant number of dead or "hibernating" gods, and of course the various pantheons of the Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, Gnomes, Drow, Mulhorandi and monstrous cultures. Now, of course it's nice, in one way, to have a deity for every little aspect of the world, as it offers great customization for clerics and temples. It also leaves a lot of room for all the baroque intrigues and squabbles among the gods that we have come to expect. But on the other hand, in my view at least, it tends to somehow take away from the importance and "divinity" of the individual powers. For example, there are eight deities alone to govern the various aspects and forms of magic - Mystra, Azuth, Savras, Velsharoon, Shar, Isis, Thoth and Seth, and that's only the human pantheons to start with. And the creators of the Avatar trilogy seemingly fell in love with their mortal protagonists so deeply that they promptly had to promote three of them to divine rank, eventually - Midnight / Mystra, Cyric and Kelemvor. True, some of them are cool (notably Cyric, as far as I'm concerned), but again, it strikes you as a tad too much of a good thing. Other creatures that should be rare and mysterious can also seem overdone - for example, I think the Realms have the highest "liches per capita" count of any fantasy world I know of. There's Larloch and his gang, there's the Twisted Rune, there's Szass Tam and probably quite a few other Red Wizards residing in undeath, there's the Cult of the Dragon, there's the head of the Arcane Brotherhood, there's the baelnorn of the elves, and so forth... Needless to say, I love Szass Tam, Larloch and the Cult of the Dragon - actually, they are among my favourite characters and organizations. I love liches, too. But that's exactly why I'm not eager to see everybody and his brother become one, as I feel it only detracts from the mystique of these most powerful undead. Then again, it's only an outgrowth of the trend to staff out every PC race with at least five subraces, not to mention aasimar, tieflings, genasi, orc-demons... To be honest, I enjoy this extraordinary variety to a degree, and love the sheer limitless opportunities for developing a character. But more often than not, I wish just a little more care was applied when introducing all the new cultures, creatures and cults. Sometimes, it might be better to flesh out something that's already there instead of coming up, time and again, with an entirely new culture / deity / race / crazed conspiracy. What I'm saying is that quality is more important than quantity, and that sometimes, less is more. Or else, when you just try to include "all fantasy worlds" imaginable just for the sake of it, you end up with no world at all - not one that has a distinctive, cohesive identity, at least. And I feel this danger is increasing with every new version of the Realms, when you follow the development of the various editions. To be fair, the designers seem to have recognised this to an extent, and some of the more blatantly uncreative experiments of the past have quietly been consigned to the backburner - I don't hear too much talk about the native Americans of Maztica or good ol' Genghis Khan and his Horde anymore, and that's probably a good thing. But still, a lot of material is still thrown in when there was little necessity to do so, except maybe to introduce a new toy just for the sake of it. Great, but on a closer look, it might not be all that different from the other toys that were already around. Take the Shades, for example. Sure, they are interesting enough, and the Shadow Weave and the Shadow Adepts are cool ideas - but was it really, really necessary to disturb the Archwizards of old Netheril in their eternal slumber to introduce any of that? Couldn't the same effort have been used to flesh out an already existing organization, like the Red Wizards of Thay, who seemed perfectly able to fill the "ruthless and power-hungry mages" role by themselves, at least in my book? Wasn't Netheril actually more intersting the way it was, as a thing totally lost and gone, in legend only? Or, in anothe example, did we really have to get acquainted with Velsharoon, a stereotypical and underdeveloped excuse for an "undeath deity" if ever there was one, when Myrkul or even Jergal could have filled that role with a little tweaking? After all, Bane is back from the dead, too, so it's not as if there weren't enough resurrections to go around... What I'm saying is, the Realms are unchallenged in quantity, no doubt about it. But maybe it's time to stop the expansion for now, or even revert some of it, so we can better concentrate on the quality. Don't get me wrong, a lot of cultures, deities and organizations are developed in excellent quality, I'm not saying it isn't there - but frankly, a fair share is pretty bleak and underdeveloped, too, and some parts are just plain redundant. Ideally, I think a game world should strike a balance somewhere between the Realms as they are now - huge, but of inconsistent quality - and settings like, say, Dragonlance, which is smaller, perhaps even too small for some tastes, but arguably more cohesive and developed in its entirety. This is just an example of several possible ones, so please don't turn this into a "Realms vs. Dragonlance" war - as for me, I love both settings! But I also think they can both be improved, and can both learn from each other. What the Realms could learn, in my view, is that sometimes the sheer grandeur can take away from the detail, and that both need to be carefully balanced. Long post, but hopefully an interesting one. I'd be glad to hear some opinions and comments, thanks a lot.
Jagermeister 08-22-03, 08:33 PM	The variety is good, to an extent. Sometimes it feels contrived for one reason: The diversity is more or less there for just the sake of having diversity. The Realms was supposed to be a place that had a little bit of everything, or so I'm told. :devil: This can be good and bad, just depends. I like some of it, but don't use what seems contrived or out of place. It's all in the DMs portrayal and presentation.
Godagast 08-22-03, 08:47 PM	I know where you're coming from, and of course, the main thing is for the DM to decide what he wants to include in his campaign. I think what I'm trying to say is, the "a little bit of everything" approach has already been done rather well, thank you very much - and some of the bright new features and expansions seem not like true additions anymore, but redundant repetitions, like a fantasy "fashion of the month". To be fair, it's not nearly as bad as it used to be in the current edition, but some of the mentality still seems to be in place. Instead, the same effort could be used to flesh out already existing and truly interesting aspects of the Realms, and the DM's might be even better off in their supply as a result.
Shyhawk 08-22-03, 09:48 PM	:sad:
chris7476 08-22-03, 10:30 PM	The Realms make a campaign based on any locale or environment doable. That can be very daunting though. Theoretically, you could put a huge map of the Realms on a wall and throw a dart at it and run an entire campaign wherever the dart hit. Some of the homebrew settings I have seen seem to take this variety out of the equation. By putting some kind of limitation into the world (like low-magic, or no elves, or a water world, etc), the DM doesn't have to work as hard on deciding what type of campaign to run. The decision-making process (as I'm finding now) can be very difficult when trying to decide on a location for a campaign in the Realms.
RatoncitoGris 08-23-03, 05:05 AM	I see what yuor point is, and, even though I agree than sometimes they overdo it (you are dead right on the Shades), I don't think than the realms are too diverse, have too many gods or than all that substracts credibility. In fact, quite the opposite. Can you think on a world where there is, or have been, among other hundreds or cultures, a medieval europe, a Genghis Khan horde, a chinese and japanese culture, arabian and egyptian civilizations, a precolombine civilization, and a whole boatload of thousands of gods? A world -a whole world- is hugely diverse. The settings than I do find lacking credibility, in fact, are not the ones like th Realms, but the ones who turn around just one or two concepts
rmilsop 08-23-03, 07:10 AM	The realms is vast, overwhelmingly so, and it is intended to be, because it is not just A setting, it is THE setting. The Forgotten Realms, and not just A Forgotten Realm. That is why there is so much diversity - because it is supposed to be a fantastical mirror of our own world, and not just a magified corner of it.
Mirtek 08-23-03, 08:58 AM	Originally posted by Godagast Calimshan is obviously Arabia, not the historical one, of course, but with lots of elements straight out of 1001 nights - sultans, harems, djinn, efreet, flying carpets, decadent luxuries. While Calimshan certainly belongs to this corner as well, you forgot the main 1001 nights region of Toril, the Al-Quadim setting
Iakhovas 08-23-03, 11:02 AM	I've detailed my thoughts on this topic in other threads. It is my personal belief that the variety of the setting is exactly why the Forgotten Realms has flourished. There have been countless, pseudo-european medieval D&D settings. Many have come and gone. They either are too narrow in focus (ie. Greyhawk, Dragonlance) or far too fantastic for the masses (ie. Planescape, Spelljammer, Ravenloft).
Chris24601 08-23-03, 12:59 PM	While I agree to much diversity can be problem, a lot of it depends upon how the DM's use the material. If, for example, the characters flit from place to place and culture to culture in the Realms, yes it could be overwhelming. If, on the other hand, you use the Realms as you would an encyclopedia when deciding where to set your campaign for a d20 modern game (say a detective agency in Chicago) then the wealth of flavor is great because you are almost guarenteed that you can find someplace that fits the themes and campaign elements you're looking for for your campaign. The key to using the Realms effectively is to not use ALL of the Realms... just use enough of the world to give the campaign flavor.
lordmaxwell 08-23-03, 02:58 PM	I find that I write two kinds of campaigns: 1) The campaign and campaign world exists only for this campaign. It's like a novel or trilogy that tells a story using a world to make it alive. 2) A continous campaign world, where many campaigns have existed and more will come. If you look for books like this they describe a world, and use the story as an excuse to do it. (The prime example I can think of are the horrible books about Ayla by Jean M Auel, which takes this approach to it's highest peak.) For 1 Forgotten Realms is near worthless. For 2 FR might very well work, depending on your taste in the fantastic. I'm not especially in love with Forgotten Realms, but it's one of the better supported campaign worlds out there, and thanks to the numerous computer games set within it I don't have to "sell" it especially hard to gamers. People who have never even played Dungeons&Dragons still tend to know what Myth Drannor is, and are drooling at a chance to go loot it. ;) When time becomes a constraint, and lovingly crafting a home brew isn't an option any more it's pretty good. It's simple, it's fun and it's largely braindead. Perfect for an easy romp in the action movie style of easy moral choices and fantastic encounters. Just what the doctor ordered. (The above reflect more aesthetic ideas of mine rather than any belief that The Karamazov Brothers is a superior novel compared to The Hunt for Red October in any absolute scale.)
Ilythiir 08-23-03, 05:30 PM	i love the realms because i love history and i love fantasy. in the realms you can find all the great empires of our world with all the good fantasy ideas of tolkien narnia and others what makes me play in the realms is that i can choose any ancient culture and find one very much like it plus elves dwarfs magic and greeklike gods. that said i know what your saying (your right about the shades) but as for the unfinished feeling to some of the areas in the realms i think it allows for the DM to customize i know i do alot
Veneficus 08-26-03, 03:34 PM	I find that any time the game is set in FR, the other players are so familiar with the novels that they quickly come to criticize the DM for any and every little deviation from canon. I don't know the realms of the novels as well as the other people I have played with, and cannot DM in FR because of it. When I have tried, I have got countless complaints; except for the one group I was with that never read.