Why all the Faerun-hate? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Why all the Faerun-hate? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
kaeso
11-26-05, 10:36 PM Every time I come to the boards, it seems like there's a new "I hate Faerun" thread, or 50 more people have hijacked a thread and made it a "Faerun sucks" discussion. What's the deal? Faerun is detailed, it's high-magic (which many, many people find fun), and it's huge and diverse. I think that people hate it for a few reasons, some of which are not-so reasonable:
1) dislike of high-magic
2) dislike of the super-powerful NPC's
3) jealous of all the details put into Faerun, and not other settings
4) jumping onto the bandwagon of hatred
5) dislike highly detailed settings, like more vague ones the DM can manipulate more
6) dislike all the changes to the setting (I love Faerun, but I agree with this one. I hate how it's always changing w/ novels! Keep it constant, not all of us can afford or have the time to read all the novels and supplements d :censored: t!)
can you think of any others?
Tobus Neth
11-26-05, 10:39 PM I hate the LOXO
Cainan
11-26-05, 10:40 PM And the Loxo hate you.
Chosen of the Dark Sun
11-26-05, 10:47 PM I hate the LOXO
Wait, aren't those just from MMII?

As to your problem with novels changing everything, just ignore the novels.
Seraphim of Night
11-26-05, 10:52 PM I have pretty much exclusively played Faerun and there is a great deal I hate about it, but as a DM I feel free to pick and choose certain details that improve the story. I hate alot of the pansy goody goodies in the realms, and I especially hate alot of their gods.
kaeso
11-26-05, 10:53 PM As to your problem with novels changing everything, just ignore the novels.
I try, but then I find that certain events from novels find their way into supplements, which... perturbs me. I do like the novels, and I understand why things change after the novels are written, but it's still a pain to keep up w/ events. Either way I think that Faerun is the best, but I'm still curious to other reasons why anyone would hate Faerun so much.
warlockco
11-26-05, 11:25 PM Wait, aren't those just from MMII?

As to your problem with novels changing everything, just ignore the novels.

Loxo have been part of the Realms since 2E.
KnightErrantJR
11-26-05, 11:41 PM I thinks its interesting that some people do indeed spend a lot of energy going out of their way to make sure Realms fans know they hate the Realms. D&D has several official settings . . . the Core Setting is pretty sparse, but you can supplement it with the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer, and Ghostwalk is an interesting setting in a one shot book as well. Eberron is a high magic with less established background and many fewer established NPCs as well. DragonLance is still officially D&D, and Sovereign Press does a pretty good job of supporting it, and it is a lower magic, more roleplaying oriented setting. And while its not published even in part by WOTC, Kingdoms of Kalamar is an officially licened setting that is lower magic, less epic in power level setting that still has room for all of the core setting book materials. And you can always make up your own world.

My point in all of this is that you have a lot of options, and you don't have to like the Realms, but as a Realms fan, I have never trolled the Eberron boards trying to post all of the things I dislike about that setting, nor any Greyhawk boards either. It strikes me that many of those that take shots at the Realms spend a lot of energy thinking about what they dislike and obsessing over it rather than enjoying something that they may like, be it their own home campaign or another setting.

If you think that if the Realms were not supported that your own setting would get more play, its unlikely. The Realms product line is a proven performer that has been the cornerstone of the D&D line for a long time, and it was the main reason that TSR didn't tank sooner than it did. You don't have to like it, but its a fact that it is not likely to go away unless there is a massive paradigm shift in the ideas about how to market the D&D game.
Dark Wizard
11-27-05, 01:43 AM I think there are just as many FR fans who dislike or don't care about the various other settings, but the anti-FR people are much more vocal about it, which makes them seem far more numerous than they are. There are some loud people defending FR when the anti-FR people go trolling about but that is to be expected. There is always a minority of people who will dislike an otherwise popular thing, a minority that will express themselves, and extremist are always the loudest (fanboys and their opponents the My/This-other-setting-r0xX0rz people).

Being the most well established of the D&D settings that is receiving good (heck even decent .:eyes Greyhawk and the half dozen other 2e settings:.) specific support, it draws most of the fire. For example, Eberron is still pretty new, give it a few years, more people will be exposed to it and it will just have as many people who dislike it as FR.
Aaron L
11-27-05, 09:20 AM The animosity started when 2E came out and support of Greyhawk was unceremoniously dumped in favor of making the Realms into the unofficial base setting of D&D. Then it was fanned by such things as the code of conduct, which made all villainous groups seem like nothing but bumbling idiots, over exposure of the Harpers and Drizzt Do'Urden, and the Avatar Trilogy and the Time of Troubles, which many, many people hate with a seething passion.

Many people (who previously may have even liked the setting) believed it was a fantasy version of Disneyland and gagged at the thought of playing in it.

I thought the Realms were great when I first read the 1E Grey Box. The 2E era gave me a nasty taste in my mouth and, although reading up on the Realms from time to time, seeing a Harper under every rock kept me away. With 3E, the FRCS has made me a very big Realms fan once again.
ssampier
11-27-05, 01:35 PM 1. Popular, some people hate things they see as mainstream or "dumbed-down"
2. Poor DMs that abuse NPCs, making them the spotlight of the campaign. The 2ed Time of Troubles module series was like this
3. Players that shocked when things in the campaign aren't exactly like the novels, "Whadda ya mean the leader is not character X? It says right in this book Y, page 240, the leader is character X, you fool!"
4. Drizzt clones. Need I say more?

Of course many of these issues are personal player or DM issues, but those involved could be forever "soured" by the experience.

Personally I don't Forgotten Realms, I've played it in for years, beginning briefly in 1st edition, culminating around the middle of 2nd edition. I like to put my own touch on any campaign world and many people don’t like published campaign being "tarnished" like that, so I run homebrew. It's really fun and I don't have to worry about stepping on any designer's or players proverbial toes. Maybe someday I'll pickup FR again.

Eberron and Greyhawk get plenty of criticism, too, by the way.
BrianCritchley
11-27-05, 03:01 PM aye, I think a lot of the "I hate FR" crowd, are just people who had a bad experiance, FR's being so mainstream means while we get a lot of good players, yeah we're gonna be popular with munchkins. and Munchkins can make a player hate and loath anything.

I've developed a healthy hatrd of half-dragons due to one PC in a game I played with.
Dirty Dan the Laundry Man
11-27-05, 03:54 PM Of the hundreds of gamers I've played D&D with over the years, I'd have to say that the vast majority of intelligent, educated, articulate, and creative gamers tend to be those that gravitate to F.R. as their preferred campaign setting.

Those looking for a simpler and less complex gaming experience (nothing wrong with that) tend towards the Greyhawk and generic campaign settings. While I used to despise FR, I've slowly accepted it over the years primarily because of the quality level of gamers that prefer FR.

YMMV, but that's my personal experience.
Ocrus of Wessek
11-29-05, 01:26 AM i am not one of the people who hates FR, it is what it is, and what it is got me interested in DnD after reading a few books. I will say though, there are a good deal of problems with it, most prominent in my mind being the ridiculous abundance of source material, having too much stuff makes it harder to manage the rules, which is why i still use the 2nd edition FR Atlas. But that aside i also enjoy living greyhawk, i agree that its best to just enjoy the game for what it is rather than harping on what you would like to see changed.
Cainan
11-29-05, 01:41 AM I've never understood how people could be against more detail and content. As a DM, you can always just ignore stuff you don't know. It's like saying that you don't like a buffet because it has too many items in it. You can just pick the items you want and ignore the rest. I think this is what makes FR so good.
Aaron L
11-29-05, 05:51 AM Of the hundreds of gamers I've played D&D with over the years, I'd have to say that the vast majority of intelligent, educated, articulate, and creative gamers tend to be those that gravitate to F.R. as their preferred campaign setting.

Those looking for a simpler and less complex gaming experience (nothing wrong with that) tend towards the Greyhawk and generic campaign settings. While I used to despise FR, I've slowly accepted it over the years primarily because of the quality level of gamers that prefer FR.

YMMV, but that's my personal experience.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of gamers who prefer the Realms that I have gamed with over the years were whiney, power gaming, rules lawyering munchkins, while those who preferred Greyhawk did so out of a love of the settings history, cultural details, and lack of black and white morality, and nothing to do with a less complex game experience, so we can see that personal experience has little meaning here.

I love the Realms, but I love Greyhawk too. belittling one to uplift the other upsets me.
Mula
11-29-05, 06:02 AM ...while those who preferred Greyhawk did so out of a love of the settings history, cultural details, and lack of black and white morality...
I love it how each setting's advocates talk about the lack of black and white morals in the world. Apparently, Eberron, Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, and Dragonlance each have strong unclear, gray themes. :)

Whatever happened to the traditional black-and-white D&D we all know? ;)
Diffucius
11-29-05, 07:05 AM I've never understood how people could be against more detail and content. As a DM, you can always just ignore stuff you don't know. It's like saying that you don't like a buffet because it has too many items in it. You can just pick the items you want and ignore the rest. I think this is what makes FR so good.

Details are the DM's best friends. Being able to throw in just the slightest detail or background fact about the scene increases depth to insane levels, almost as in Tolkien's Middle Earth. Just adding an old skeleton wearing an armor with a cormyrian emblem on, can make the players go wild with imagination... ("Something has happened here")

And then again, even though it is high magic, not every news or fact reaches all ears -- I'd dare say a dalesman doesn't know much about what happens in Amn or along the Sword Coast. At least not until months after. ("Fresh news, came in this morning" -- the players choose to travel and investigate, only to find a completely different situation)
High magic or no, normal people never get to know even larger movements unless the events intimately involve their country. Important news only travel some 70 or so miles per day, meaning the farthest reaches need days to receive news.

And about spotlighting major NPCs: I think it's great we have so many NPCs who can make appearances. But the players should never more than hear about them, unless they're a part of some great event or they come near the NPCs levels. ("Why care for the maggots")
The NPCs are prevalent, but never present, I say.
Cainan
11-29-05, 07:05 AM As long as there is LG, LN, LE, NG, N, NE, CG, CN, CE then there is black and white morality.
GothicDan
11-29-05, 11:28 AM I like me some Faerun. Yup.
MysteryGilgamesh
11-29-05, 12:58 PM The strange thing about Faerun hate is, most of the people who do hate it, know less than jack :censored: about the setting. These are the morons who come in and proudly proclaim that "FR is t3h bad becuz it h4s t3h 4828483rd level npc's 4ll 0ver lol", or "it's t00 high mag1c!1!!!!" when they've never so much as even looked in an FR book.

The fact is, and this is the blunt, honest truth that all of those FR haters don't see, or are just so biased they'll never see: FR isn't any more high magic than any campaign out there. Want proof?

Do PC's have more wealth per level than the standard charts? Nope.

Do PC's get cost/time/exp breaks on making items? Nope.

Do items cost less? Maybe, if you deal with those underhanded Thayan's or a similar shady merchant who could just be pulling your leg, because he is just smart (or stupid) enough to Nystul's Magical Aura something. But guess what? Any setting can offer this. I know Eberron does.

Do wizards/clerics/sorcs/druids/etc. (name a class!) suddenly get more spells per level, more per day, or any other sort of spellcasting bonus? Nope.

Is getting wizards/clerics/sorcs/druids/etc. (name a class!) to cast spells for you suddenly easier/cheaper? Nope.

Can the common man use magic? Nope.

High level NPC's? Are you kidding me? How does being high level make the world suddenly more magical? Not every wizard can churn out items. And there are more high level noncasters in FR, than there are casters. Don't believe me? Go take a look.

Gee...All of that looks about as high magic as a standard D&D world! Miracle of miracles, isn't it?
Mula
11-29-05, 01:18 PM Well, to be honest, FR does have a few things on the high-end of the scale. NPCs tend to have very high ability scores, and this leads to players either wanting or needing very good scores, too; 32 point buy instead of 25. Also, there are regional feats and regional equipment, both which offer more power than the standard D&D campaign.
MysteryGilgamesh
11-29-05, 04:45 PM Well, to be honest, FR does have a few things on the high-end of the scale. NPCs tend to have very high ability scores, and this leads to players either wanting or needing very good scores, too; 32 point buy instead of 25. Also, there are regional feats and regional equipment, both which offer more power than the standard D&D campaign.

A 25 PB is on the low end of the scale. Quite low, in fact, especially since rolling is the default method and tends to produce scores more in line with a 28-30 PB more often than not.

Regional equipment means nothing past level 1. A potion or two, a scroll or two, or a MW weapon won't significantly impact wealth values, and thats pretty much all you get for your regional equipment.

As for the regional feats, with the exception of a very, very small selection, they're usually suboptimal for one reason: They never lead in to any other feats or PrC's, more often than not, and most everyone tends to go for a PrC if they have the chance to.
BrianCritchley
11-29-05, 05:03 PM Regional equipment means nothing past level 1. A potion or two, a scroll or two, or a MW weapon won't significantly impact wealth values, and thats pretty much all you get for your regional equipment.

indeed I just started a new FR game, and my PCs where so sued to high level chars for awhile, as we where at lower levels I found myself having to remind them regional equipment existed.

as for FR being high magic, all that means is that you roll a d6 instead of a d4 in detirmining the highest level wizard in a village. wow big high magic dat! :rolleyes:
Alon D'ar
11-30-05, 11:01 AM I'm not too familar with Faerun and there are things I don't like but overall I don't hate it. I myself like thigs on a small scale when it comes to magic but that's my choice and Faerun is suited for that as well. Sadly as of now my experiences in Faerun have been less than pleasing and by no means because of the setting but because of the DM. Soon were starting a new game and the guy running it knows what he's doing so it should be fun.
Lawless
12-01-05, 11:58 AM As far as high magic campaigns go I like FR fine. There are some things I dislike about it but I definitely don’t hate it. The bulk of my dislikes are stuff TSR practiced that have carried over to WotC, (i.e. favoring the wizard class as whole, Harpers in every freaking where, too much Chosen, inept, and/or underpowered badguys; why should anyone be afraid of Szam or Manshoon etc if they never win a battle and kill one of the good guys, too PG-13 mentality/focus in general) focus, but not things as far as Ed intended(s) them to be, being a frequent reader of Kuje’s links. I love and appreciate the detail, more the fluff stuff than the over abundant number of PrC classes, (most of which seem to rehash all the same abilities and features but in different combinations). If I want less detail and/or low magic I play another setting.
Selgaunt
12-01-05, 12:12 PM I love everything about the realms. I've been playing the forgoten realms since it first came out in 1987 and have never looked back. I love all the information and the detail.

There's absolutely nothing better out there!
KismetRose
12-01-05, 12:39 PM I've also been noticing the proliferation of anti-Faerun threads lately, and I'm pretty sick of them. Then again, I'm also a fan of White Wolf games and I'm used to seeing them bashed across a variety of threads (and I'm pretty sick of that too). There's not much to be done in either case. Some folks will be persuaded to think differently of the Realms but those changes will generally come from their own experiences and not any arguments put forth here. A few folks might get tired of complaining about Faerun. Other folks will continue to talk trash because that's what we humans seem to like to do best - we just choose different things to attack..
Gallameed
12-01-05, 12:46 PM Q. Why all the Faerun-hate?

A. Because popularity breeds contempt.

Simple! ;)
PlaDeDump
12-01-05, 06:17 PM Other folks will continue to talk trash because that's what we humans seem to like to do best

I hear ya! People complain because that's what people do. Me, I like The Forgotten Realms CS, but I do find the sheer amount of source material needing to be studied intimidating. Running the Realms seems to be rewarding though from reading the posts on this website and at Candlekeep. I'm glad D&D has many campaign settings available to the DM & players (Dragonlance, Dark Sun, Greyhawk, Eberron, etc). For each individual's personal taste, there's always something available.
GothicDan
12-01-05, 09:21 PM Ed Greenwood has said, pretty much, that FR is completely and utterly saturated with magic - hence the reason for Mystra's uber-power. FR is indeed a high magic setting, as it has always been. Just as, by comparison, Dragonlance was a low magic setting.

And there are an obscene amount of Epic level arcane casters, actually, that more than outnumber Epic non-arcane casters several times over.

The thing to ask is: Why are you complaining about something that you chose personally to get yourself involved in when there were other options available?

Too difficult to make your own campaign setting or modify things as they exist without making a huge ruckus about it? Well, that's you being lazy, not FR being flawed.
stranger_654
12-01-05, 10:15 PM What i dont understand personally about the complaining is why bother? if you dont like something and someone else does, whats the point of complaining and trying to make your opinion heard..
I know that when i dont like something, i dont tell everyone that i dont like it, i just stop using it/buying it or whatever the product/item/thing is....so theres a thought for you if you dont like FR, Just shut up about it and let those who do enjoy it go a while without hearing how much someone hates it...
Just my two copper peices worth anyway...

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
kaeso 11-26-05, 10:36 PM	Every time I come to the boards, it seems like there's a new "I hate Faerun" thread, or 50 more people have hijacked a thread and made it a "Faerun sucks" discussion. What's the deal? Faerun is detailed, it's high-magic (which many, many people find fun), and it's huge and diverse. I think that people hate it for a few reasons, some of which are not-so reasonable: 1) dislike of high-magic 2) dislike of the super-powerful NPC's 3) jealous of all the details put into Faerun, and not other settings 4) jumping onto the bandwagon of hatred 5) dislike highly detailed settings, like more vague ones the DM can manipulate more 6) dislike all the changes to the setting (I love Faerun, but I agree with this one. I hate how it's always changing w/ novels! Keep it constant, not all of us can afford or have the time to read all the novels and supplements d :censored: t!) can you think of any others?
Tobus Neth 11-26-05, 10:39 PM	I hate the LOXO
Cainan 11-26-05, 10:40 PM	And the Loxo hate you.
Chosen of the Dark Sun 11-26-05, 10:47 PM	I hate the LOXO Wait, aren't those just from MMII? As to your problem with novels changing everything, just ignore the novels.
Seraphim of Night 11-26-05, 10:52 PM	I have pretty much exclusively played Faerun and there is a great deal I hate about it, but as a DM I feel free to pick and choose certain details that improve the story. I hate alot of the pansy goody goodies in the realms, and I especially hate alot of their gods.
kaeso 11-26-05, 10:53 PM	As to your problem with novels changing everything, just ignore the novels. I try, but then I find that certain events from novels find their way into supplements, which... perturbs me. I do like the novels, and I understand why things change after the novels are written, but it's still a pain to keep up w/ events. Either way I think that Faerun is the best, but I'm still curious to other reasons why anyone would hate Faerun so much.
warlockco 11-26-05, 11:25 PM	Wait, aren't those just from MMII? As to your problem with novels changing everything, just ignore the novels. Loxo have been part of the Realms since 2E.
KnightErrantJR 11-26-05, 11:41 PM	I thinks its interesting that some people do indeed spend a lot of energy going out of their way to make sure Realms fans know they hate the Realms. D&D has several official settings . . . the Core Setting is pretty sparse, but you can supplement it with the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer, and Ghostwalk is an interesting setting in a one shot book as well. Eberron is a high magic with less established background and many fewer established NPCs as well. DragonLance is still officially D&D, and Sovereign Press does a pretty good job of supporting it, and it is a lower magic, more roleplaying oriented setting. And while its not published even in part by WOTC, Kingdoms of Kalamar is an officially licened setting that is lower magic, less epic in power level setting that still has room for all of the core setting book materials. And you can always make up your own world. My point in all of this is that you have a lot of options, and you don't have to like the Realms, but as a Realms fan, I have never trolled the Eberron boards trying to post all of the things I dislike about that setting, nor any Greyhawk boards either. It strikes me that many of those that take shots at the Realms spend a lot of energy thinking about what they dislike and obsessing over it rather than enjoying something that they may like, be it their own home campaign or another setting. If you think that if the Realms were not supported that your own setting would get more play, its unlikely. The Realms product line is a proven performer that has been the cornerstone of the D&D line for a long time, and it was the main reason that TSR didn't tank sooner than it did. You don't have to like it, but its a fact that it is not likely to go away unless there is a massive paradigm shift in the ideas about how to market the D&D game.
Dark Wizard 11-27-05, 01:43 AM	I think there are just as many FR fans who dislike or don't care about the various other settings, but the anti-FR people are much more vocal about it, which makes them seem far more numerous than they are. There are some loud people defending FR when the anti-FR people go trolling about but that is to be expected. There is always a minority of people who will dislike an otherwise popular thing, a minority that will express themselves, and extremist are always the loudest (fanboys and their opponents the My/This-other-setting-r0xX0rz people). Being the most well established of the D&D settings that is receiving good (heck even decent .:eyes Greyhawk and the half dozen other 2e settings:.) specific support, it draws most of the fire. For example, Eberron is still pretty new, give it a few years, more people will be exposed to it and it will just have as many people who dislike it as FR.
Aaron L 11-27-05, 09:20 AM	The animosity started when 2E came out and support of Greyhawk was unceremoniously dumped in favor of making the Realms into the unofficial base setting of D&D. Then it was fanned by such things as the code of conduct, which made all villainous groups seem like nothing but bumbling idiots, over exposure of the Harpers and Drizzt Do'Urden, and the Avatar Trilogy and the Time of Troubles, which many, many people hate with a seething passion. Many people (who previously may have even liked the setting) believed it was a fantasy version of Disneyland and gagged at the thought of playing in it. I thought the Realms were great when I first read the 1E Grey Box. The 2E era gave me a nasty taste in my mouth and, although reading up on the Realms from time to time, seeing a Harper under every rock kept me away. With 3E, the FRCS has made me a very big Realms fan once again.
ssampier 11-27-05, 01:35 PM	1. Popular, some people hate things they see as mainstream or "dumbed-down" 2. Poor DMs that abuse NPCs, making them the spotlight of the campaign. The 2ed Time of Troubles module series was like this 3. Players that shocked when things in the campaign aren't exactly like the novels, "Whadda ya mean the leader is not character X? It says right in this book Y, page 240, the leader is character X, you fool!" 4. Drizzt clones. Need I say more? Of course many of these issues are personal player or DM issues, but those involved could be forever "soured" by the experience. Personally I don't Forgotten Realms, I've played it in for years, beginning briefly in 1st edition, culminating around the middle of 2nd edition. I like to put my own touch on any campaign world and many people don’t like published campaign being "tarnished" like that, so I run homebrew. It's really fun and I don't have to worry about stepping on any designer's or players proverbial toes. Maybe someday I'll pickup FR again. Eberron and Greyhawk get plenty of criticism, too, by the way.
BrianCritchley 11-27-05, 03:01 PM	aye, I think a lot of the "I hate FR" crowd, are just people who had a bad experiance, FR's being so mainstream means while we get a lot of good players, yeah we're gonna be popular with munchkins. and Munchkins can make a player hate and loath anything. I've developed a healthy hatrd of half-dragons due to one PC in a game I played with.
Dirty Dan the Laundry Man 11-27-05, 03:54 PM	Of the hundreds of gamers I've played D&D with over the years, I'd have to say that the vast majority of intelligent, educated, articulate, and creative gamers tend to be those that gravitate to F.R. as their preferred campaign setting. Those looking for a simpler and less complex gaming experience (nothing wrong with that) tend towards the Greyhawk and generic campaign settings. While I used to despise FR, I've slowly accepted it over the years primarily because of the quality level of gamers that prefer FR. YMMV, but that's my personal experience.
Ocrus of Wessek 11-29-05, 01:26 AM	i am not one of the people who hates FR, it is what it is, and what it is got me interested in DnD after reading a few books. I will say though, there are a good deal of problems with it, most prominent in my mind being the ridiculous abundance of source material, having too much stuff makes it harder to manage the rules, which is why i still use the 2nd edition FR Atlas. But that aside i also enjoy living greyhawk, i agree that its best to just enjoy the game for what it is rather than harping on what you would like to see changed.
Cainan 11-29-05, 01:41 AM	I've never understood how people could be against more detail and content. As a DM, you can always just ignore stuff you don't know. It's like saying that you don't like a buffet because it has too many items in it. You can just pick the items you want and ignore the rest. I think this is what makes FR so good.
Aaron L 11-29-05, 05:51 AM	Of the hundreds of gamers I've played D&D with over the years, I'd have to say that the vast majority of intelligent, educated, articulate, and creative gamers tend to be those that gravitate to F.R. as their preferred campaign setting. Those looking for a simpler and less complex gaming experience (nothing wrong with that) tend towards the Greyhawk and generic campaign settings. While I used to despise FR, I've slowly accepted it over the years primarily because of the quality level of gamers that prefer FR. YMMV, but that's my personal experience. Unfortunately, the vast majority of gamers who prefer the Realms that I have gamed with over the years were whiney, power gaming, rules lawyering munchkins, while those who preferred Greyhawk did so out of a love of the settings history, cultural details, and lack of black and white morality, and nothing to do with a less complex game experience, so we can see that personal experience has little meaning here. I love the Realms, but I love Greyhawk too. belittling one to uplift the other upsets me.
Mula 11-29-05, 06:02 AM	...while those who preferred Greyhawk did so out of a love of the settings history, cultural details, and lack of black and white morality... I love it how each setting's advocates talk about the lack of black and white morals in the world. Apparently, Eberron, Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, and Dragonlance each have strong unclear, gray themes. :) Whatever happened to the traditional black-and-white D&D we all know? ;)
Diffucius 11-29-05, 07:05 AM	I've never understood how people could be against more detail and content. As a DM, you can always just ignore stuff you don't know. It's like saying that you don't like a buffet because it has too many items in it. You can just pick the items you want and ignore the rest. I think this is what makes FR so good. Details are the DM's best friends. Being able to throw in just the slightest detail or background fact about the scene increases depth to insane levels, almost as in Tolkien's Middle Earth. Just adding an old skeleton wearing an armor with a cormyrian emblem on, can make the players go wild with imagination... ("Something has happened here") And then again, even though it is high magic, not every news or fact reaches all ears -- I'd dare say a dalesman doesn't know much about what happens in Amn or along the Sword Coast. At least not until months after. ("Fresh news, came in this morning" -- the players choose to travel and investigate, only to find a completely different situation) High magic or no, normal people never get to know even larger movements unless the events intimately involve their country. Important news only travel some 70 or so miles per day, meaning the farthest reaches need days to receive news. And about spotlighting major NPCs: I think it's great we have so many NPCs who can make appearances. But the players should never more than hear about them, unless they're a part of some great event or they come near the NPCs levels. ("Why care for the maggots") The NPCs are prevalent, but never present, I say.
Cainan 11-29-05, 07:05 AM	As long as there is LG, LN, LE, NG, N, NE, CG, CN, CE then there is black and white morality.
GothicDan 11-29-05, 11:28 AM	I like me some Faerun. Yup.
MysteryGilgamesh 11-29-05, 12:58 PM	The strange thing about Faerun hate is, most of the people who do hate it, know less than jack :censored: about the setting. These are the morons who come in and proudly proclaim that "FR is t3h bad becuz it h4s t3h 4828483rd level npc's 4ll 0ver lol", or "it's t00 high mag1c!1!!!!" when they've never so much as even looked in an FR book. The fact is, and this is the blunt, honest truth that all of those FR haters don't see, or are just so biased they'll never see: FR isn't any more high magic than any campaign out there. Want proof? Do PC's have more wealth per level than the standard charts? Nope. Do PC's get cost/time/exp breaks on making items? Nope. Do items cost less? Maybe, if you deal with those underhanded Thayan's or a similar shady merchant who could just be pulling your leg, because he is just smart (or stupid) enough to Nystul's Magical Aura something. But guess what? Any setting can offer this. I know Eberron does. Do wizards/clerics/sorcs/druids/etc. (name a class!) suddenly get more spells per level, more per day, or any other sort of spellcasting bonus? Nope. Is getting wizards/clerics/sorcs/druids/etc. (name a class!) to cast spells for you suddenly easier/cheaper? Nope. Can the common man use magic? Nope. High level NPC's? Are you kidding me? How does being high level make the world suddenly more magical? Not every wizard can churn out items. And there are more high level noncasters in FR, than there are casters. Don't believe me? Go take a look. Gee...All of that looks about as high magic as a standard D&D world! Miracle of miracles, isn't it?
Mula 11-29-05, 01:18 PM	Well, to be honest, FR does have a few things on the high-end of the scale. NPCs tend to have very high ability scores, and this leads to players either wanting or needing very good scores, too; 32 point buy instead of 25. Also, there are regional feats and regional equipment, both which offer more power than the standard D&D campaign.
MysteryGilgamesh 11-29-05, 04:45 PM	Well, to be honest, FR does have a few things on the high-end of the scale. NPCs tend to have very high ability scores, and this leads to players either wanting or needing very good scores, too; 32 point buy instead of 25. Also, there are regional feats and regional equipment, both which offer more power than the standard D&D campaign. A 25 PB is on the low end of the scale. Quite low, in fact, especially since rolling is the default method and tends to produce scores more in line with a 28-30 PB more often than not. Regional equipment means nothing past level 1. A potion or two, a scroll or two, or a MW weapon won't significantly impact wealth values, and thats pretty much all you get for your regional equipment. As for the regional feats, with the exception of a very, very small selection, they're usually suboptimal for one reason: They never lead in to any other feats or PrC's, more often than not, and most everyone tends to go for a PrC if they have the chance to.
BrianCritchley 11-29-05, 05:03 PM	Regional equipment means nothing past level 1. A potion or two, a scroll or two, or a MW weapon won't significantly impact wealth values, and thats pretty much all you get for your regional equipment. indeed I just started a new FR game, and my PCs where so sued to high level chars for awhile, as we where at lower levels I found myself having to remind them regional equipment existed. as for FR being high magic, all that means is that you roll a d6 instead of a d4 in detirmining the highest level wizard in a village. wow big high magic dat! :rolleyes:
Alon D'ar 11-30-05, 11:01 AM	I'm not too familar with Faerun and there are things I don't like but overall I don't hate it. I myself like thigs on a small scale when it comes to magic but that's my choice and Faerun is suited for that as well. Sadly as of now my experiences in Faerun have been less than pleasing and by no means because of the setting but because of the DM. Soon were starting a new game and the guy running it knows what he's doing so it should be fun.
Lawless 12-01-05, 11:58 AM	As far as high magic campaigns go I like FR fine. There are some things I dislike about it but I definitely don’t hate it. The bulk of my dislikes are stuff TSR practiced that have carried over to WotC, (i.e. favoring the wizard class as whole, Harpers in every freaking where, too much Chosen, inept, and/or underpowered badguys; why should anyone be afraid of Szam or Manshoon etc if they never win a battle and kill one of the good guys, too PG-13 mentality/focus in general) focus, but not things as far as Ed intended(s) them to be, being a frequent reader of Kuje’s links. I love and appreciate the detail, more the fluff stuff than the over abundant number of PrC classes, (most of which seem to rehash all the same abilities and features but in different combinations). If I want less detail and/or low magic I play another setting.
Selgaunt 12-01-05, 12:12 PM	I love everything about the realms. I've been playing the forgoten realms since it first came out in 1987 and have never looked back. I love all the information and the detail. There's absolutely nothing better out there!
KismetRose 12-01-05, 12:39 PM	I've also been noticing the proliferation of anti-Faerun threads lately, and I'm pretty sick of them. Then again, I'm also a fan of White Wolf games and I'm used to seeing them bashed across a variety of threads (and I'm pretty sick of that too). There's not much to be done in either case. Some folks will be persuaded to think differently of the Realms but those changes will generally come from their own experiences and not any arguments put forth here. A few folks might get tired of complaining about Faerun. Other folks will continue to talk trash because that's what we humans seem to like to do best - we just choose different things to attack..
Gallameed 12-01-05, 12:46 PM	Q. Why all the Faerun-hate? A. Because popularity breeds contempt. Simple! ;)
PlaDeDump 12-01-05, 06:17 PM	Other folks will continue to talk trash because that's what we humans seem to like to do best I hear ya! People complain because that's what people do. Me, I like The Forgotten Realms CS, but I do find the sheer amount of source material needing to be studied intimidating. Running the Realms seems to be rewarding though from reading the posts on this website and at Candlekeep. I'm glad D&D has many campaign settings available to the DM & players (Dragonlance, Dark Sun, Greyhawk, Eberron, etc). For each individual's personal taste, there's always something available.
GothicDan 12-01-05, 09:21 PM	Ed Greenwood has said, pretty much, that FR is completely and utterly saturated with magic - hence the reason for Mystra's uber-power. FR is indeed a high magic setting, as it has always been. Just as, by comparison, Dragonlance was a low magic setting. And there are an obscene amount of Epic level arcane casters, actually, that more than outnumber Epic non-arcane casters several times over. The thing to ask is: Why are you complaining about something that you chose personally to get yourself involved in when there were other options available? Too difficult to make your own campaign setting or modify things as they exist without making a huge ruckus about it? Well, that's you being lazy, not FR being flawed.
stranger_654 12-01-05, 10:15 PM	What i dont understand personally about the complaining is why bother? if you dont like something and someone else does, whats the point of complaining and trying to make your opinion heard.. I know that when i dont like something, i dont tell everyone that i dont like it, i just stop using it/buying it or whatever the product/item/thing is....so theres a thought for you if you dont like FR, Just shut up about it and let those who do enjoy it go a while without hearing how much someone hates it... Just my two copper peices worth anyway...