Post/Author/DateTime	Post
kaeso 08-16-06, 09:04 PM	Why are so many people adamantly anti-Faerun? I don't understand. I've though about it, and I have a few ideas. My impression is that those 'pro-Eberron anti-Faerun' people are either: 1) rules lawyers 2) people who had bad experiences with Faerun 3) people who HATE fluff, and want a hack-n-slash playstyle (the whole 'I WANNA ROCK THE WORLD AT LEVEL 7!' thing) 4) people who want Faerun to lose support so that Eberron will gain more support, thus increasing the number of Eberron-related suppliments that are published each year. Any ideas?
Bladesong 08-16-06, 09:45 PM	Well you're in the Forgotten Realms forums, so you won't find much hate here. In my experience, there are more anti-Eberron folk than anti-Realms. Let me be frank. Eberron has a snowball's chance in Hell of overtaking the Forgotten Realms franchise.
kaeso 08-16-06, 09:51 PM	I know there will be Faerun supporters here, and I was just wondering what everyone else thinks. My impression from the Faerun or Eberron thread is that there is a lot more Faerun hate out there than Eberron hate.
Bladesong 08-16-06, 10:08 PM	Eberron fans like to mouth off because they're really insecure about the fact that Eberron is a French poodle compared to the Forgotten Realm's mutant man-eating Siberian Tiger. However, us Forgotten Realms fans don't have to say anything. We know we're superior and don't need words to make anyone realize it.
Alac Luin 08-16-06, 10:54 PM	From what I gather, it's mostly #2, or people who believe the stories. Many believe everyone that plays the realms are all powergamers or munchkins, but I've seen more powergaming and munchkinisim on the Eberron boards. They complain about the "Realms Nazis" of these boards, but in turn it was the "Eberron Gestapo" that keeps me from desiring to visit the Eberron boards. They don't like how incoherent the realms is, but in turn bash any attempts to explain how something works. They hate Drizzt, well some people here hate drizzt also. Well, there is something many can agree on. ;)
WhrenKehrsyn 08-16-06, 11:03 PM	The most common complaint I hear about FR is the NPCs. 'Why doesnt Elminster do it?' and all that. Im not sure why these people think that or absolutely must have said NPCs running around thier game upshowing the PCs. Its funny because Ive only very rarely heard those coplaints when it comes to Star Wars, whos major NPCs are arguably more involved and important to the setting. I think maybe some DMs just feel like they must have Elminster or Drizzt show up or cameo. In all honesty I do like Eberron also. I t has a good deal of potential, and is interesting (admitedly I only have the campaign setting book).Its not as developed as FR, but of course it hasnt been around for a fraction of the time. Anyway, I dont think Eberron has much to do with it, just a convenient excuse. Anti FR sentiment has been around for much longer than Eberron has.
GothicDan 08-16-06, 11:08 PM	Agreed with Whren. :)
WhrenKehrsyn 08-16-06, 11:15 PM	Agreed with Whren. :) Oh my... *Listens to The Twilight Zone music* =0)
GothicDan 08-16-06, 11:17 PM	You know, we've only actually disagreed with any real vehemence on like two threads. ;)
WhrenKehrsyn 08-16-06, 11:19 PM	lol I know, but I dont post all that much, so 2 threads may as well be 100 =0)
Psionycx 08-16-06, 11:55 PM	I have to admit that I like the Realms less now than I did 15 years ago. While it's still a grand setting it's been dragged along some very twinkish paths and really sacrificed a lot of the things that were really great back in the earlier days. Once upon a time a lot of characters did "rock the world at Level 7"! The Knights of Myth Drannor, Alias and lots of others were low- to mid-level characters with great personality development that did awesome stuff. Not everyone and their grandmother was Epic back then. Nowadays there's a sense that a 7th level character should just shut up, keep their head down and go run whatever errand the Blackstaff tells them to. A lot of the really great old time characters are all but forgotten now, lost in the shadows of the ever-increasingly pumped up mega-NPC's whose stats just leap off the page and get even more awesome with every new printing. I remember the charming days when Elminster was a mere 500 winters old, rather than pushing 1200, and was just a 26th level magic-user with some psionic talents not some immortal vessel of divine energy with super powers. He was also a more approachable character back then. The Realms is great in terms of panorama and scope of vision. But it has lost a lot of it's early charm.
Lord Karsus 08-16-06, 11:56 PM	Eberron fans like to mouth off because they're really insecure about the fact that Eberron is a French poodle compared to the Forgotten Realm's mutant man-eating Siberian Tiger. However, us Forgotten Realms fans don't have to say anything. We know we're superior and don't need words to make anyone realize it. 'Nuff said. :cool:
Alac Luin 08-17-06, 12:08 AM	In all honesty I do like Eberron also. I t has a good deal of potential, and is interesting (admitedly I only have the campaign setting book).Its not as developed as FR, but of course it hasnt been around for a fraction of the time. I like Eberron for what it is too. Have you seen the "Sharn: City of Towers" book? Man, I wish they still made realms books like that. It read almost like a Volo's Guide. Whren, be surprised if Dan agrees with me. Over the years the only thing I can remember we have agreed on is that we can accept NIN as a music choice. EDIT: I should have put a :D in there somewhere. ;)
kaeso 08-17-06, 02:34 AM	Eberron fans like to mouth off because they're really insecure about the fact that Eberron is a French poodle compared to the Forgotten Realm's mutant man-eating Siberian Tiger. However, us Forgotten Realms fans don't have to say anything. We know we're superior and don't need words to make anyone realize it. But we need to, for the sake of everyone else. If the Eberron radicals keep mouthing off about Faerun, then new players won't play Faerun, and they'll miss out. We should at least give them a fight! Go team! :cheer: :w00t: :dancin: :bounce: Plus, the thread on D&D General is tearing FR apart :(
BadCatMan 08-17-06, 02:42 AM	I tried, but I suck at internet debating. I probably did more harm than good. :weep: Thing is, in internet debates/arguments/flamewars, no one can ever be convinced of anything, or to just let it go. People just drive themselves further into their positions, and refuse to be swayed, no matter how much evidence you throw at them, or they'll interpret said evidence in their favour. The same points cycle around continuously and never get anywhere.
Kid SixXx 08-17-06, 12:44 PM	But we need to, for the sake of everyone else. There's a joke in here somewhere....
Kid SixXx 08-17-06, 12:46 PM	But we need to, for the sake of everyone else. FR fans as martyrs? I never thought of it that way. :rolleyes: I don't think it's as much hate for the setting as it is for the "Ohhhh, let us bring the enlightenment of the FR to the unwashed heathens" attitude presented above that draws the snarky commentary. These FR back-slapping mutual appreciation society threads show up at least once a month & are arguably the best entertainment on the intarweb thingie. Can we just roll the dice & enjoy both settings without perpetuating the stooopid D&D civil (uncivil?) war? I mean, it's a game. As for the scism, every niche in pop culture has it's legions of zealot fanboys. If you think the arguments here get heated, go debate Star Wars canon sometime at the Lucas boards. There are folks there that debate matters very hotly as if The Clone Wars actually happened, and I find that pretty scary.
GothicDan 08-17-06, 12:55 PM	Everyone hates everyone else. Let's move on, folks. ;) .... I still like Planescape.
Faraer 08-17-06, 02:22 PM	Realms 'hate' isn't common, to start with -- vehemence is loud and hyperbole attractive. Most people are saner, or at least have much bigger things to worry about. The causes are personal preference and taste (often legitimate, sometimes dubious), tribalism and rationalizing in one's investment in one thing rather than another, jealousy of the Realms' popularity and support, and Chinese whispers-style canards (some understandable given the presentation of the Realms, some pure nonsense). Someone subject to one of these is more open to the others (almost all behaviour has multiple motivations). Judging by online discussion, kaeso's 'people who had bad experiences with Faerun' (which could be down to the setting as published or to the DM) is not a common factor. Denigrations of the Realms as an RPG setting are almost universally theoretical rather than based on actual negative experience. Ill feeling between fans of imaginary worlds is a moronic waste of time no matter 'who started it'. Psionycx, I also like the current published Realms less than I did then (despite some excellent recent products). But I find it easy to see through the shifts in presentation to the underlying Realms beneath.
theartistformerlyknownas 08-17-06, 02:44 PM	Everyone hates everyone else. Let's move on, folks. ;) .... I still like Planescape. I miss planescape. It never mattered what Prime you were from, if you were in Outlands, you were in the Lady of Pain's territory. And she's called <I>the Lady of Pain</I> for a reason.
jokei 08-17-06, 02:45 PM	Well, after a 14 year absence from F.R. and gaming in general I decided to get back in and having an old fondness for the Realms I was awestruck by the scope the Realms had taken. There's more stuff out there than you can shake a (pointy) stick at... It seems a weird point though, as F.R. vs Eberron vs Greyhawk vs Ravenloft all offer different "flavours" of settings and anything else I want to do with my world is up to me, if I want Warforged in the Realms, I can have it, or Spelljammers etc. I guess the reason for the "hatred" is too much spare time on your hands, which is what got me back into the hobby; personally I'm not keen on the Eastern portion of Faerun, so my campaign doesn't focus on those areas.
ShadezofDis 08-17-06, 02:58 PM	I have to admit that I like the Realms less now than I did 15 years ago. Once upon a time a lot of characters did "rock the world at Level 7"! The Knights of Myth Drannor, Alias and lots of others were low- to mid-level characters with great personality development that did awesome stuff. Not everyone and their grandmother was Epic back then. Nowadays there's a sense that a 7th level character should just shut up, keep their head down and go run whatever errand the Blackstaff tells them to. A lot of the really great old time characters are all but forgotten now, lost in the shadows of the ever-increasingly pumped up mega-NPC's whose stats just leap off the page and get even more awesome with every new printing. I remember the charming days when Elminster was a mere 500 winters old, rather than pushing 1200, and was just a 26th level magic-user with some psionic talents not some immortal vessel of divine energy with super powers. He was also a more approachable character back then. Here, here! I heartily agree. Heh, what was Cyric and Midnight when they took out Bhal? I'm 99% confident it was below 10th (granted Cyric had an avatar in his hands and Midnight had a bunch of goddess power, but still, the point remains)
GothicDan 08-17-06, 03:03 PM	Ah, I remember when Ed first statted Elminster as "only" a 17th level Wizard. And then, TSR. Sigh.
ShadezofDis 08-17-06, 03:53 PM	Ah, I remember when Ed first statted Elminster as "only" a 17th level Wizard. And then, TSR. Sigh. Boy do I ever pine for the days when a 17th level wizard was a rarity. Even in 2nd ed I had a hard time swallowing all the uber-mages, seemed every boxed set I got had at least 5 20+ level mages. I just can't buy that many epically powerful mages, though I'm definitelly a "magic light" DM. (In my current campaign I started the pc's off at 3rd level, one of them asked me if he could have a magic item and I just laughed in his face *g*)
Dark Wizard 08-17-06, 04:01 PM	Yes. Now FR as a setting is taking the flak for some of the ridiculous changes and real world analogies TSR and others made to it. The setting has taken the blame for the bad design policies of a hectic time period and conflicted company when the setting itself is just as much a victim of those policies. Uber-level NPCs (did TSR even realize how powerful even a 17th or 20th level spellcaster is, does WotC?), real world analogies, disjointed continuity and inconsistencies, retcons, all these things have been debated and denounced by fans and non-fans alike, people from both sides of the argument. It is difficult to argue for a setting when even many fans of the setting disagree with changes made to the setting or aspects of the setting that have gotten out of hand. A newer setting like Eberron, which is still strongly within the guidance and influence of its creator and many like-minded designers, may have one or two sourcebooks with a few points that disagree with the core atmosphere of the setting (Five Nations and Races of Eberron seem to be the main books disliked by fans). The Realms on the other hand had 20 years of publication, and unforunately not all of it was a good publication history. FR had three whole continents attached to it with little thought to consistency and tone. Fate has dealt Eberron a much kinder hand. At least, it seems designer who are more familiar with the setting are handling its expansions, Xen'drik was written by Keith Baker himself and I'm sure Sarlona will get a similar treatment. As I understand it, the Frostfell region was added on, but done so with heavy revisions and worked into the setting. This is good for Eberron that it missed TSR's crazier days and doesn't have to deal with a transistion across two editions. I am sure most Eberron fans agree with me when I say I hope Eberron never sees the day the Lord of Blades becomes a Chaotic Stupid Fiendish Feral Rabid Stainless Steel Half-Dragon Half-Drow Psi-Uberforged Fighter 18/Ninja 13/Pirate 12/Cowboy 5/Robot 1.5 multiwielding laminated ginsu fullbladed dai-katanas of doom. Though it would be nice to see a competent forum poster address the great thrashing FR is being given in the General forum. I, however, am not that poster. I get my butt handed to me in even the least heated of discussions, even when I'm on the easy to win side.
Faraer 08-17-06, 04:02 PM	Level inflation is level inflation and has happened throughout the published life of D&D. It has nothing to do with any campaign setting in particular. It's bad, but these are just numbers; they don't have much effect on lore (which they're attempts to translate, albeit on an inflationary scale) or gameplay. (Elminster was never given as below 26th.)
kaeso 08-17-06, 04:06 PM	FR fans as martyrs? I never thought of it that way. :rolleyes: I don't think it's as much hate for the setting as it is for the "Ohhhh, let us bring the enlightenment of the FR to the unwashed heathens" attitude presented above that draws the snarky commentary. I don't think people who don't play Faerun are 'unwashed heathens,' nor do I think that we should 'bring the enlightenment of FR' to other players. I simply think the setting has something to offer, and that people who constantly bad mouthing it are causing others to miss out on something fun. I think every setting has something to offer. Your 'snarky comment' was completely uncalled for. These FR back-slapping mutual appreciation society threads show up at least once a month & are arguably the best entertainment on the intarweb thingie. Congrats on your find sir troll, hope you had a good laugh. Can we just roll the dice & enjoy both settings without perpetuating the stooopid D&D civil (uncivil?) war? I mean, it's a game. I never said Eberron can't be enjoyed. In fact, I would like to run it someday, but right now I don't have the time for another campaign. The reason I asked this question on the Forgotten Realms General boards and not, say, the D&D General or (God help me) the Eberron General boards, is because if I did I would not only get very few good answers, but it would all turn into one big flame war with trolls running around throwing fireballs at each other. Those never turn out well. I am actually looking for answers, and so I asked my question here.
Fabius Maximus 08-17-06, 05:03 PM	Aww, come on. The Eberron boards are not that bad... I like FR, Eberron, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Dark Sun and Planescape. All settings have their right to exist, and are of different flavour. So stop the whining. ;)
GothicDan 08-17-06, 05:16 PM	(Elminster was never given as below 26th.) Really? I could have sworn that he was 17th at one point. I must have gotten my NPCs confused.
Yaeri 08-17-06, 05:37 PM	Really? I could have sworn that he was 17th at one point. I must have gotten my NPCs confused. I distinctly recall Elminster being born epic, pointy head and all. I've read part of the which campaign setting thread. I too got the impression that FR was being bashed for nothing. I've got nothing against Eberon. But I really dislike those few who need to trash FR because they're playing the "other" setting. I guess they're the equivalent of our Drizzt fanboys. :D Badcatman, you did a great job in that thread.
Yaeri 08-17-06, 05:43 PM	Aww, come on. The Eberron boards are not that bad... I think what the Eberon boards are suffering from right now, is that there are still a lot of *ahum* mentally overrated people who flock there because it's the new cool thing. That is not too say anything about the setting itself. There are great people on the Eberon forums as well as on any other forums. People who like Eberon because of its good qualities. But there's also still the little kids who like it just because its new. I think those are the irrational bashers. In a few years or when another setting pops up they may leave the Eberon boards and start bashing Eberon because the new setting is so much cooler.
Alac Luin 08-17-06, 05:58 PM	But there's also still the little kids who like it just because its new. I think those are the irrational bashers. In a few years or when another setting pops up they may leave the Eberon boards and start bashing Eberon because the new setting is so much cooler. Problem is, some of these "little kids" are over 30, but still act as mentally overrated little kids. I'm not bashing someone for being over 30, since I am. I expect more from people in my age group. And if I don't see some level of civility when you disagree someone, I choose to not play in their playground. I can hop in my car and drive to a playground closer to home.
Yaeri 08-17-06, 06:09 PM	The mature people at the Eberon boards are probably embarassed by them too. Perhaps we can build a huge box, and then we go telling everyone there's a new campaign setting inside, with katana's and lasers and then they all go in the box and we close it and throw it in mount doom! Since that day forward, the people of the Forgotten realms and Eberon boards lived in peace together.
HVulpes 08-17-06, 06:20 PM	This is all a form of politics and like all politics the Partisans scream and the Moderates mummble. It is also like religion and ideology in that way. Perhaps instead of yelling at people at different boards (There and here) to only use your favourite setting, point out how they can use your setting to enhance their own. One of Eberron's 'rules' is that it can use anything from any D&D source. The realms can be very flexible in it's own way as well. Plus the Tree and the Wheel should allow access to the Orbit through the Shadow Plane. Perhaps you could add a Fey'ri to your Ebberon Campaign linked to the Blood of Vol or one of the Dark Six. Or have a Warforged appear as a new creation that Gond has been spending years to perfect and mass produce to show his glory. Have a cross-town caper that takes you from Sharn to Waterdeep and back. With enough creativity (and Money :P ) you could create a greater campaign experience. PS: I would love to see the effect of the Realm-wheelers try to attach the Wheel to the Orbit. They might be able to do it, but I would like to see the looks on their faces when they start that task. :)
GothicDan 08-17-06, 06:38 PM	Mumble mumble.
Alac Luin 08-17-06, 06:53 PM	I have seen various attemts at combineing Eberron and Realms elements, each with varrying degrees of sucsess and/acceptence. From warforged under Waterdeep to clerics of the silver flame weilding spellfire. Some aspects can be made, but it really is hard to connect Eberrons planes to the wheel. :)
Riodrian 08-17-06, 08:18 PM	I think it's Eberron attracting the new and younger gamers because it IS new. I love the Realms...always have, always will. But if I just started playing this year, what setting would attract me most? 1. A new setting with *maybe* a dozen books to buy and still under a majority of creative design by it's creator. Easy to get into and adjusted to. 2. And older, established setting with hundreds of sourcebooks? It's overwhelming for new players if you think about it. And when new players do ask a question, they are told to reference books that were released and printed before some of the players were even born! Or to go and read pages and pages of the creators replies because the company that releases the setting likes to change the timelines, the continents, the NPCs, the feel and tone, and whatever else to make a buck. Ed's replies are great, by the way...they are better than some of the sourcebooks that you PAY for. For an older player like me, who has played in the Realms since the cute lil grey boxed set, all this extra reading is fine. I read the supplements as they came out. Ed's replies make sense to me because I can put them into context. But a new player wil be overwhelemed by it and choose the easier setting...and it's their loss. Eberron is okay, and has merits...but I'll keep enjoying the Realms.
GothicDan 08-17-06, 08:22 PM	Number 2 never particularly discouraged me much. ;)
BrianCritchley 08-17-06, 09:09 PM	maybe so GD but I can understand how intimidating it can be, when I got into FR it was kinda intimidating, and I was lucky and chose a good time to get involved (the FRCS had just been released) a massive campaign setting can be VERY intimidating, especially when someone has read more books. try to imagine how intimidating it would be if you're running a d&d campaign in FR and ALL you have is FRCS. meanwhile joe accross the table from you has been playing long eneugh to remember 1E FRm has read ALL the sourcebooks and all the novels. even if Joe's relitivly good he might intimidate the DM simply by his knowledge of the realms. if there are too many books, this includes novels and sorucebooks it can really be scary for a would be new comer. I know that FR isn't the only gaming world where I've heard the complaint "there are too many books!" this is especially annoying when it's a novel driven world and thus you have to keep reading the novels to know the goings on.
Dark Wizard 08-17-06, 09:10 PM	Likewise, I started a year or two before 3e came about. Though I didn't pay attention to FR or D&D on the internet back then and I played with people who were new to the setting as well.
GothicDan 08-17-06, 09:16 PM	I don't know. I'm not turned off by a confrontation of knowledge. When I first started playing D&D, it was with people 15-30 years older than me... So I soaked up as much knowledge as I could get, and got determined to surpass them. But I'm just naturally competitive like that. :)
Old Sage 08-17-06, 09:33 PM	2. And older, established setting with hundreds of sourcebooks? It's overwhelming for new players if you think about it. And when new players do ask a question, they are told to reference books that were released and printed before some of the players were even born! Or to go and read pages and pages of the creators replies because the company that releases the setting likes to change the timelines, the continents, the NPCs, the feel and tone, and whatever else to make a buck. Ed's replies are great, by the way...they are better than some of the sourcebooks that you PAY for. I can understand that. It is, sometimes, an aspect that I have to remind myself about when I reply to reference or lore questions both here and at Candlekeep. I consider myself lucky to have been with the Realms since the start -- 1987 -- so, I tend to find pathways for referencing lore, in regard to questions asked, that usually are of benefit to me. Which is, I suppose, a little unfortunate for those who, as you say, need to catch-up and find references in older sourcebooks. But the older lore is a worthwhile pursuit in its own right and, I like to think, that by my mentioning of these sources when questions are asked, I'm doing my bit to perpetuate the strength that is the history of the published Realms. I know there's a lot to learn. And sites like Candlekeep and WotC help somewhat for those who are either new to the setting or still learning their way around. But, from my experiences with the Realms over the last (near) 20 years... it's really something that you discover on your own. Discovery is part of the fun when it comes to the Realms, for me. I'm still finding odd tidbits and references I missed during earlier readings of older sourcebooks. And I love them for that. I guess what I'm saying is, you tend to find your own path with regard to learning about the Realms, that fits you and your interpretation of Ed's grand world. That's how I've always looked at the Realms, and I'll always continue to do so. We are all, in fact, still learning about the Realms.
sais 08-17-06, 09:59 PM	I personally prefer the Forgotten Realms campaign and novels because there is just as much diversity in what can be done than some other campaigns. Eberron doesn't look too shabby either or Dragonlance. I have the Forgotten Realms as my favorite.
GothicDan 08-17-06, 10:10 PM	We are all, in fact, still learning about the Realms. I wish they'd stop 'advancing the timeline' so much, so we could actually see ALL about them as they stand in a given point in time. :)
BadCatMan 08-18-06, 12:00 AM	Badcatman, you did a great job in that thread. Sarcasm or genuine complement? :) I'm kind of embarrased I got involved. Maybe I'm too much of a Paladin to let something lie. :embarrass Wherever there's a field that people can take an interest in, and the field gets divided into one division or another, either real or imagined, I've seen this sort of nonsense take hold. I'm primarily a Doctor Who fan myself, I just really like playing in the Realms. In some internet fora, people (like me) who prefer the 7th Doctor were persecutedly mercilessly. The abuse was incredibly vicious and vile. Even mentioning one particular story or creature, inoccuously (sp?) or in relation to something else, was enough to bring it on. It became taboo, and when no bothered to say anything for a while, the perpetrators would get bored and post more hate-filled diatribes. It was madness. Then it became conservatism versus radicalism. In a few years, it will become old series versus new series. Sigh. I see it in Apple versus Windows, or Kirk versus Picard, or Realms versus Eberron. It's probably in countless other fields, even sport, religion, politics to go to extremes. It's the same sort of crap that arises whenever humans get together to discuss their favourite things. There will always be someone who has to be jerk about it.
Faraer 08-18-06, 12:36 AM	BadCatMan, which of the anti-Realms guys on that thread do you think understands the setting best? Because I've never once seen a 'my setting is best, yours is awful' pugilist (of any affiliation) who gets the Realms worth a damn.
Kid SixXx 08-18-06, 01:23 AM	I don't think people who don't play Faerun are 'unwashed heathens,' That's right. I forgot your earlier post where you said we were "radicals mouthing off" about the Eberron setting and preventing new people from basking in the warm glow of Aber-Toril. :rolleyes: Congrats on your find sir troll, hope you had a good laugh. I'm thrilled to death. By my wristwatch, "Why Isn't DDO Set In The FR?" thread and the "Dungeon Adventure Path! Why Not Set In Faerun?" threads should be along any day now, and I'm sure that the "woe is our setting - when is our next regional sourcebook?" pity party will continue in those threads as well. I am actually looking for answers, and so I asked my question here. If you wanted the opinion of Eberron players as to why we hate the FR (of which you'd probably count the number on one hand because most of us still run or participate in FR campaigns), you should've gone to the Eberron boards. Pitching a rhetorical thread in the home field is a plea for agreement or sympathetic voices not answers, IMO.
Grocery_Bag 08-18-06, 02:14 AM	Why Isn't DDO Set In The FR? Maybe because of Neverwinter Nights 2 I wouldn't play DDO if it were set in the Realms anyway, the game would be a poor substitute for the real thing. Incedentally that could be why it's set in Eberron and not Faerun.
Ranger REG 08-18-06, 02:14 AM	Personally, I'm not worried about Faerun haters. It's the Kara-Tur deniers that concerns me.
BrianCritchley 08-18-06, 02:37 AM	I see it in Apple versus Windows, or Kirk versus Picard, or Realms versus Eberron you forgot SW Prequals vs the original trilogy, thats a big one too. :) I wish they'd stop 'advancing the timeline' so much, so we could actually see ALL about them as they stand in a given point in time. agreed, to a point, no reason to halt the slow march of time, but it'd be nice if WOTC could slow down the pace of realms shaking events. it's getting to the point where RSE's lack their impact because we're almost getting USED to a constant stream of em.
BadCatMan 08-18-06, 02:42 AM	BadCatMan, which of the anti-Realms guys on that thread do you think understands the setting best? Because I've never once seen a 'my setting is best, yours is awful' pugilist (of any affiliation) who gets the Realms worth a damn. I don't know, they all sound pretty much the same. :) They claim to have read various books, etc, but I'm sensing a "read, but don't understand" vibe. Many bits of so-called evidence they quote are lacking the context: ie the Shining South bandit camp that is high EL. I checked it out, the few leaders are higher level (8-10, IIRC) evil freaky adventurers, while the basic bandits are only levels 1 and 2. It's only high EL if you attack everyone at once. It's hardly a random encounter, it's something to build an important adventure around. Of course, we could say that if they did understand the Realms, they wouldn't complain, or that they don't understand the Realms, so they shouldn't complain. Getting into and understanding an entire setting is a bit of an effort when you're not liking what you see. People often just don't like what they don't understand*. I wouldn't blame them if they simply weren't interested, or it wasn't their cup of tea. I don't much like/get Dragonlance or Greyhawk, and I don't know much about them, but I certainly won't rant on and on about it, and hijack other threads to do so. * But then, I like what I've heard about Dark Sun and Planescape, and know next to nothing about them.
Raelan_Harpell 08-18-06, 02:47 AM	I like Eberron for what it is too. Have you seen the "Sharn: City of Towers" book? Man, I wish they still made realms books like that. It read almost like a Volo's Guide. Much as I have little interest in Eberron or anything related to it, I may just take a look at that, then. I haven't been buying much in the way of WotC products of late because they just aren't as good as they used to be. I miss the stuff being put out near the end of 2nd Edition, like Empires of the Shining Sea, Drizzt's Guide to the Underdark, Lands of Intrigue, Sea of Fallen Stars, and the like. A couple of the newer products have been pretty darned good (Lost Empires of Faerun, Silver Marches), but, for the most part, the magic just isn't there anymore. :weep:
kaeso 08-18-06, 03:21 AM	Aww, come on. The Eberron boards are not that bad...No I meant that it would be suicide (or at least trolling) to go to the Eberron boards and ask why they hate Faerun. Perhaps instead of yelling at people at different boards (There and here) to only use your favourite setting,Once again, sorry for the confusion... and I never said that anyone should play only Faerun. point out how they can use your setting to enhance their own. Good idea, everyone should do this (though it can be somewhat daunting...) That's right. I forgot your earlier post where you said we were "radicals mouthing off" about the Eberron setting and preventing new people from basking in the warm glow of Aber-Toril. :rolleyes: I do think that the way some Eberron players have unending hatred for Faerun is indeed quite radical- once again, I think all settings have something to offer, but many seem to disagree and have an 'A11 0f FaErUn iz Th3 5u(k!' attitude. I never said they were 'preventing new people from basking in the warm glow of Aber-Toril.' I guess I must keep repeating myself. I think all settings have something to offer, and that many of the anti-FR arguments are incorrect. I feel that newer players are being given a wrong impression, and might never try a setting that they might have enjoyed. If you wanted the opinion of Eberron players as to why we hate the FR (of which you'd probably count the number on one hand because most of us still run or participate in FR campaigns), you should've gone to the Eberron boards. Pitching a rhetorical thread in the home field is a plea for agreement or sympathetic voices not answers, IMO. So is it not also possible for people who play in Faerun and post on this board to play in Eberron? I think that if I went to the Eberron boards and asked people why they hated Faerun, I would be flamed right out (made quite clear by your rude attitude here). I wanted good answers that were not affected by personal hatreds for the setting. As a side note, stop twisting my words around, it's getting very old. If you're going to quote me, quote me.
Yokinobu 08-18-06, 04:27 AM	I think that if I went to the Eberron boards and asked people why they hated Faerun, I would be flamed right out (made quite clear by your rude attitude here). I wanted good answers that were not affected by personal hatreds for the setting. You're probably right. Hell, it wasn't even on the Eberron board that I sat there and got ripped apart by a bunch of radicals spewing their opinions in "fact" form and whining about their bad experiences with FR, or mention something they didn't like, and therefore justify hating it. I tried to be very civilized attacking Eberron itself in only one instance, but they don't let up. They take your one time you attacked Eberron, quote it 'til it's expiration date, and then attack FR for every flaw concievable. Nevermind the hypocrisy, a suppose that is an invisible concept to them. Thank God one rare soul had the decency of explaining the problems they felt that there were with FR, and he had some good points.
Weiser_Cain 08-18-06, 05:27 AM	I haven’t seen this E vs. FR thread but I disagree with anything gothicdan likes out of hand... But here's my problem with FR. It is dnd to me so any problem I have with dnd beyond mechanics has to do with FR, as that's the only non-dead official setting I know thanks to Salvatore. Too european for my tastes It isn’t Dark Sun (a plus and a negative) It's tilted in favor of good except for a few invincible but somehow bumbling baddies It’s insanely high magic (which I like) but wants to be treated as if it’s not (at least around here) The chosen of mystra Mystra, or any other deity of non-clerical magic Too many elves, the must breed like rabbits considering how many wars they’ve been involved in Everything black being evil The whole FR (and it’s subset ‘Ed Greenwood’) is god thing is a bit off-putting Old material needing to be referenced and converted over from different editions really sucked (correction sucks as there still isn’t an 3.5 epic level book) when I was (am?) still trying to figure out how to even play the dang game. I’m off to find that argument…
Lord Karsus 08-18-06, 09:06 AM	-Oh, phooey. I misread someone's post, and responded. Then, I realized that I misread it. Worse yet, I don't have anything that I want to contribute to this thread. Darn... :rolleyes:
Kid SixXx 08-18-06, 09:27 AM	I think that if I went to the Eberron boards and asked people why they hated Faerun, I would be flamed right out (made quite clear by your rude attitude here). The only reason you'd be flamed out would be because you went to the Eberron boards with your "Eberron radicals" mentality. When you go someplace looking for confrontations, you tend to find them and if you give courtesy you tend to receive it. Here's a thread where we behaved rather well in response to the usual "What's The Deal With The Airships?" type of questions. Probably because we weren't insulted first, eh? (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=687898) Truthfully, my responses are pretty much linked to your off-base impressions and knee-jerk assumptions. For example, the assumption that Eberron players hate fluff and lore pretty much tell me that you've never bothered to examine the boards or even look at Eberron articles on the web or any other materiel for that matter (ie. Secrets of Xen'Drik is nothing but a book of speculation and backstory with obligatory crunch thrown in for those that expect crunch. It's a great resource.) There is a great deal of interest in the lore surrounding the setting, expecially since Keith Baker has specifically noted that quite a few elements of the setting (ie. the creation of the Mournland, the nature & origins of the Warforged, the Draconic Prophesy, the nature of the gods & their relationship to the Draconic Prophesy) will never be solidly defined. That creation is left to DM's and it's brought about a buzz of creativity I haven't seen in quite a while, and I've been playing for a long time. There is quite a bit of discussion about the planar mechanics, politics, and such on our boards, and like any other board, there are lots of discussions about pure crunch. The reason we discuss crunch more than fluff should be painfully obvious: we've got a library consisting of a handfull of sourcebooks. Eberron does not benefit from a library of novels or a wealth of lorebooks, so we don't chat as much about fluff as FR folks do. We talk alot about bread & butter mechanical issues, because frankly they need fixing. The amount of broken classes, PrC's, spells, and other elements is absolutely mindboggling (ie. If you line up a bunch of DM's, the one carrying the most asprin is the one who has a player that insists on being a Frenzied Berserker.). Eberron DM's like to clear that stuff out of the queue first before layering in the lore. I'm not going to defend our serious fanatics & zealots because they can be pretty disruptive, but as I said before, every niche in pop culture has it's unruly elements. This board has them & so does the Eberron board. The resentment of Eberron players towards the FR arguably extends towards the attitudes on the FR board more than it does to the setting itself, but that in & of itself is a hypocritical attitude to take since there is as much "Look At My BIG BRAIN" elitism & formation of cults of personality that go on in the Eberron board as there is on any other message board on the internet. Ultimately, the resentment & animosity is pointless & stupid because we're discussing something we do in our free time. Like my grandad, said, when you make the effort to point a finger of accusation outwards, there are at least three fingers pointing inwards.
Undying_Councillor 08-18-06, 09:40 AM	One of the things that has always been both the most exciting and most off-putting about the Realms is the sheer amount of information [especially in the form of novels]. I was always at a table where someone had read more than me and was forced to usually mention that I'd run the game with the knowledge I had [but was willing to listen to input] and would incorporate other ideas as my knowledge base increased. One of the reasons many of my party are liking Eberron at the momemnt [although they have all signed up for my Realms campaign] is that they asre essentially coming in at 'ground zero'. Buy a sourcebook a few times a year, buy a novel every other month and you 'keep up'. Whilst I don't agree with the mentality, I can empathise with it. Anyone else encoutered the same thing?
Lord Karsus 08-18-06, 09:44 AM	The only reason you'd be flamed out would be because you went to the Eberron boards with your "Eberron radicals" mentality. When you go someplace looking for confrontations, you tend to find them and if you give courtesy you tend to receive it. -Very true. I was there a few times over the past week or two. In a few threads, there were "disses" towards the Realms. I responded to them, and didn't try to egg anyone on. I corrected the factual errors that the poster made, and left it at that. I didn't end with, "Ha! Faerûn rules, and Eberron sucks!", or anything similar. I wasn't flamed, called-out, or anything. Perhaps I was ignored, actually, but you know... -I will say, however, that I feel that those on the Eberron Boards do tend to flame the Forgotten Realms moreso than Realms fans flame Eberron. I can't vouch for other places, such as Grayhawk, or Ravenloft. But, this is what I see. -And, I also will say that said flamers, no matter which side they are on, also claim that they are doing said flaming in retribution of past grievences. For example, FR fans flame Eberron because, they say, the Eberron fans flame the Realms more, and did it first. Eberron fans flame the Realms because, they say, the Forgotten Realms fans push everything down their throat, and began flaming Eberron because it's not the Realms first. -Personally, I find both cases reprehensible. It's like those radicals, who say that Americans only have themselves to blame for 9/11, since their own actions caused the Islamic Radicals who comitted the act to do so. -Oh, I'm beginning to ramble. Well, carry on...
Kid SixXx 08-18-06, 10:00 AM	Whilst I don't agree with the mentality, I can empathise with it. Anyone else encoutered the same thing? Yep. I've literally lost days sifting through my FR stuff when I ran a Realms campaign a long time ago, and those were blessed hours. It's pretty cool when it's just you as a DM researching and learning about the setting, but it's annoying when you're running a game especially if you're running a game that already utilizes alternative rules in addition to the setting elements. (ex. First I pull out Stormwrack, then I have to cross-reference Pirates of the Fallen Stars.... no but wait there is NEW CANON THAT OVERRIDES THE OLD CANON that I haven't been able to afford yet!!!!) If you're the type of DM that also likes to be a realmscholar, dealing with mechanical issues can be a nightmare, because it's easy to get so wrapped up in the lore that you lose sight of the mechanics. Which is why Eberron DM's like to have a solid footing with the SRD and the core mechanics. If the background stuff works, then we can put more emphasis on telling an interesting story to our players. Most Eberron DM's are under the incorrect assumption that all FR diehards ever do is absorb realmslore and never play an actual game, but I know where that urban legend came from. It came from lurking on this board and seeing the vast amount of debate on pure fluff, with little discussion about mechanics or intergration. That comes with a caveat, because most Eberron DM's do not factor the TSR vs. WoTC element into the equation. The difference in company attitudes towards the D&D product is a major sticking point that some Eberron folks frankly aren't old enough to appreciate. Let's face it, they don't build 'em like they used to. *puts on black TSR armband*
Ateth_Istarlin 08-18-06, 10:11 AM	Why the hatred? - no idea. As I've said before, I like some things in Ebberon (Warforged, Changlings, etc) - It just doesn't suit me as a setting. If you like it - more power to you! On the subject of high-lvl NPC's (which infest most, if not all setting eventually), just do what I do. I still play 2E, & if any payer meets an uber-mage (ie. Elminster, Blackstaff, Vangy, etc) I describe them as a high-lvl mage. I always treat them as being at least 5-10 lvls higher than the highest lvl PC - that way Players don't try to kill off major NPC's. BADCATMAN - Glad to meet a fellow fan of the good Doctor! :w00t:
Yokinobu 08-18-06, 11:11 AM	Like my grandad, said, when you make the effort to point a finger of accusation outwards, there are at least three fingers pointing inwards. Certainly a wise statement to go by.
Yaeri 08-18-06, 11:14 AM	2. And older, established setting with hundreds of sourcebooks? It's overwhelming for new players if you think about it. And when new players do ask a question, they are told to reference books that were released and printed before some of the players were even born! Or to go and read pages and pages of the creators replies because the company that releases the setting likes to change the timelines, the continents, the NPCs, the feel and tone, and whatever else to make a buck. All too true. It wasn't a problem for my group. We just started with the campaign setting book, and went with the lore that we found in there. Later as campaigns followed we gradually bought more books and worked in more of the lore. However I can very much see how it could be a big problem for others wanting to create something that doesn't contradict the lore in the next FR book they buy. Sarcasm or genuine complement? :) Well it was a futile job, but as to how you handled it, it was a genuine complement. It seems to me you are suffering from a bit of a low amount of self-esteem. No? :) As to balanced posts by Eberon players. I think Edymnion wins the gold in that thread. He gave his views on both settings objectively. And in other threads I've seen him say why he prefers Eberon over FR, by giving reasons and not by saying "it sucks and that's an objective fact!".
Kid SixXx 08-18-06, 01:56 PM	As to balanced posts by Eberon players. I think Edymnion wins the gold in that thread. He gave his views on both settings objectively. And in other threads I've seen him say why he prefers Eberon over FR, by giving reasons and not by saying "it sucks and that's an objective fact!". That must have been on one of Edy's good days. ;) You should see him go on one of his "Eberron Drow as a PC? Are You Nuts?" rants. That stuff is poetry. :D The most balanced guys on our board are probably Mr. Charles Phipps, Sarlax (Sam Mustain) & Siran Dunmorgan. Those three really do their homework.
Alac Luin 08-18-06, 04:02 PM	Much as I have little interest in Eberron or anything related to it, I may just take a look at that, then. I haven't been buying much in the way of WotC products of late because they just aren't as good as they used to be. I miss the stuff being put out near the end of 2nd Edition, like Empires of the Shining Sea, Drizzt's Guide to the Underdark, Lands of Intrigue, Sea of Fallen Stars, and the like. A couple of the newer products have been pretty darned good (Lost Empires of Faerun, Silver Marches), but, for the most part, the magic just isn't there anymore. :weep: I wouldn't buy Shan city of towers if you don't have intrest in the setting. I'd suggest looking at it. It has the standard new feats/spells/items/PrCs. But the location descriptions (over half the book) were sweet. Descriptive text, etc. I'd suggest looking at it and thats about it.
Riodrian 08-18-06, 05:27 PM	I wouldn't buy Shan city of towers if you don't have intrest in the setting. I'd suggest looking at it. It has the standard new feats/spells/items/PrCs. But the location descriptions (over half the book) were sweet. Descriptive text, etc. I'd suggest looking at it and thats about it. Agreed. The quality of Sharn should set the standard for supplements released in the future IMHO. No matter what the setting.
Dark Wizard 08-18-06, 06:13 PM	Which goes to show, aside from a few vocal fanatics who are in the minority (hopefully), fans of both settings simply want good, high-standards material.
Yaeri 08-19-06, 03:43 AM	You should see him go on one of his "Eberron Drow as a PC? Are You Nuts?" rants. That stuff is poetry. :D The most balanced guys on our board are probably Mr. Charles Phipps, Sarlax (Sam Mustain) & Siran Dunmorgan. Those three really do their homework. I'll keep an eye out for those guys then. :) And I'm going to look for that drow thread. Edymnion on a rant? :D I have to see that with my own eyes!
Eisel 08-19-06, 02:54 PM	One of the things that has always been both the most exciting and most off-putting about the Realms is the sheer amount of information [especially in the form of novels]. I was always at a table where someone had read more than me and was forced to usually mention that I'd run the game with the knowledge I had [but was willing to listen to input] and would incorporate other ideas as my knowledge base increased. One of the reasons many of my party are liking Eberron at the momemnt [although they have all signed up for my Realms campaign] is that they asre essentially coming in at 'ground zero'. Buy a sourcebook a few times a year, buy a novel every other month and you 'keep up'. Whilst I don't agree with the mentality, I can empathise with it. Anyone else encoutered the same thing? I've been away from the Realms for a few years for one reason or another, and coming back was a huge shock - at least in boards like this. It could take me years to catch up . . . if I felt like I needed to. I don't, however, feel any urgency about it. I'm going to run my new campaign based on what I already know and just not worry about what's happened in my absence. I'll catch up on what interests me at my own pace and it won't affect the game I'm running (unless it would make a good story! :P ) but heck yea. If I was a newcomer, and looked over all of WoTCs products, I'd probably pick Eberron simply because it wouldn't be so overwhelming.
Voran 08-20-06, 09:15 AM	Some thoughts... 1. Drizzt. 2. More seriously tho, the side effect of having a rather robust, developed setting with named characters and the like, at least from a DnD point of view, is that the inevitable "Power creep" that occurs becomes much more glaring. Particularly when you now have player chars running around. To be fair, d20 SW has this too. If you read the boards there, its something of the same, "Feh, I can pistol whip Darth Vader, he ain't so tough." in FR its more along the line of my #1 point, alot of people compare themselves to how well they can cream characters like Driz or named chars from the books. 3. Disagreement over stats of 'named characters', it can turn ugly. 4. Sometimes too much detail and care, can be hindering to the imaginations of players and DMs. In a 'self made' world, its easier to go in eyes-wide and treat everything as a new experience, rather than having metagame type concerns/thoughts of "Didn't I just read that in that FR novel?"
Kamekazou 08-25-06, 11:05 AM	1. Drizzt If you LOOK at FRCS, he's not even epic (unlike the majority of the "named" characters in the Realms). I think the reason most people hate him is just because he's so popular and people misunderstood how Drow like Drizzt are one in a million, that the race is MEANT to be evil. But alas, that argument is for another time. The number of Epic level Wizards is to me, appalling. There should never be that many uber-powerful characters (especially of the same class!) in one campaign setting, no matter HOW popular it is. Elminster... I can deal with. Khelben? You're pushing it Ed, but okay. Various other near-invincible Chosen of Mystra? Albeit, the other cornucopia of epic Wizards are not really his fault. I'm not one to Ed bash at all, but I think that the creators of these tons of Epic Wizards based them off the assumption that there were many epic Wizards in the Realms, the assumption that they got from Elminster and Ed's creations.
Faraer 08-25-06, 12:00 PM	If only 1 in 500 of Faerûn's 100 million or so humans and demihumans is a mage, that's 200,000. Of course there's a good number of archmages out of those! It would be absurd if there weren't.
MerrikCale 08-25-06, 02:11 PM	If I had one complaint about FR is magic. There's just too much of it in my mind whether it be sourcebooks, NPCs, or novels. Having said that, its still my favorite.
Kamekazou 08-25-06, 02:28 PM	If only 1 in 500 of Faerûn's 100 million or so humans and demihumans is a mage, that's 200,000. Of course there's a good number of archmages out of those! It would be absurd if there weren't. I'm sure there are well over 200,000 mages in Faerun, WELL over 200k. Magocracies (Halruaa, Thay) anyone?
GothicDan 08-25-06, 03:08 PM	I'm sure there are well over 200,000 mages in Faerun, WELL over 200k. Magocracies (Halruaa, Thay) anyone? So, you're in fact proving Faraer's point. There's a reason for there to be MANY archmages when the established history shows 35,000 years of civilized history.
Dark Wizard 08-25-06, 03:25 PM	Doesn't Faerun use a d6 instead of a d4 to determine the number of spellcasters in a village? Though on average, that's just one more spellcaster per village. It's a 'high magic' world afterall Anyway, last I checked the FR v Eberron thread dissolved into a he-said-she said argument. Several more posters put up a defense of FR, others couldn't quite get around all of those points, and it has degenerated into people shooting down opinions and even facts with their opinions. That's what it boils down to. For all the pseudo-intellectual terrminology and supposed facts tossed around about how bad a setting FR is, they are all simply opinions of a vocal few. Plenty of people play in both worlds or borrow liberally from both settings.
TheOneWhoDefeatsAO 08-25-06, 07:16 PM	:weep: i am a newcomer and i almost chose Eberron but in the end it was the realms who fascinated me...but sometimes its difficult to keep the pace since i have few books and pdfs about the realms:weep: :weep: :weep: :weep:
TheOneWhoDefeatsAO 08-25-06, 07:21 PM	it is very sad but im glad i play fr,and i already learned much in my small time playing fr
Red_Wizard 08-26-06, 03:59 PM	If you LOOK at FRCS, he's not even epic (unlike the majority of the "named" characters in the Realms). I think the reason most people hate him is just because he's so popular and people misunderstood how Drow like Drizzt are one in a million, that the race is MEANT to be evil. But alas, that argument is for another time. The number of Epic level Wizards is to me, appalling. There should never be that many uber-powerful characters (especially of the same class!) in one campaign setting, no matter HOW popular it is. Elminster... I can deal with. Khelben? You're pushing it Ed, but okay. Various other near-invincible Chosen of Mystra? Albeit, the other cornucopia of epic Wizards are not really his fault. I'm not one to Ed bash at all, but I think that the creators of these tons of Epic Wizards based them off the assumption that there were many epic Wizards in the Realms, the assumption that they got from Elminster and Ed's creations. Ok, lets put Bill Gates, George Bush, the Queen of England, Donuld Trump, and Oprah in one room. Now some of these guys are more powerful, where others simply have more influence over certain everyday aspects. Now let's fill the same room with 500,000 joes shmoes, and write a book on the event. Sure you may get a really popular body builder in there, or several up and coming writers, but i would bet alot of money on who would make the most appearences in that book, get most of the pictures, and influnce greatly how it came out in print and what it finally said. People need to step back and look at the realms in this context atleast once in awhile, and maybe then some would realise that in an ancient world, of billions of people, monsters, lost civilizations, and unexplored continents, there are going to be a handfull of epic level characters that pop up in the source material. Deal with it!
Kamekazou 08-27-06, 02:28 PM	One of the things that really irks me about the epic level characters, is that they are almost all Wizards/Archmages. The only epic level, non-wizard characters I can think of off the top of my head are Zaknafein and Gareth Dragonsbane. And one of them is dead!
Selvarin 08-27-06, 02:52 PM	Ah, I remember when Ed first statted Elminster as "only" a 17th level Wizard. And then, TSR. Sigh. When was this? I could've sworn even in his first statted debut in Dragon magazine he was listed as 23rd or 26th (and if he wasn't he was 26th by the time the 1E FR boxed set came out).
GothicDan 08-27-06, 03:02 PM	I was already corrected on that by Faraer. :) I can't quite remember why I have the 17th-level floating around in my head attached to El.
GothicDan 08-27-06, 03:03 PM	One of the things that really irks me about the epic level characters, is that they are almost all Wizards/Archmages. The only epic level, non-wizard characters I can think of off the top of my head are Zaknafein and Gareth Dragonsbane. And one of them is dead! Also, Coronal Eltagrim and the leader of the Nar Tribes. The old Iron Lord of Rashemen. A number of Clerics. Sounds about right to me. Compare the average life-spans (thus 'rough' levels) of a physicist versus a front-line soldier actively engaged in regular warfare. Now, multiply that danger-level times about 10 and you'll get your average adventurer.
Lord Karsus 08-27-06, 03:17 PM	-Magic users often augment their natural lifespans using their trade. Fighter types often can not, or do not.
HVulpes 08-27-06, 03:54 PM	-Magic users often augment their natural lifespans using their trade. Fighter types often can not, or do not. But they might have money. Remember that Wizards need spell components and Clerics need to pay for temple up keep. So a few hundred gold or platinum pieces for some potions or life expanding magics seems like a deal.
GothicDan 08-27-06, 04:31 PM	Money is utterly negligible to high-level spellcasters with an iota of creativity. And potions of longevity no longer exist in the current edition, any way, and they require ELVEN BLOOD to create among other things.
cat_god 08-27-06, 07:59 PM	I might ask why there seems to be a lot of anti-FR sentiment on the Eberron boards, just to see their perspective. I personally don't mind Eberron, what bugs me is when they attack FR, one of my favorie CS, among Planescape and Ravenloft.
Lord Karsus 08-27-06, 08:16 PM	And potions of longevity no longer exist in the current edition, any way, and they require ELVEN BLOOD to create among other things. -I wonder where they all went when 2e became 3e? There must be a huge extradimensional space, or demiplane filled with things that existed in 2e but don't exist in 3e, where no explanation for their removal was ever given.
Faraer 08-27-06, 08:24 PM	They were removed in the DMG because the combat-focused system of costing magic items didn't factor in factors like ageing. But not being in the rules doesn't mean they aren't in the setting. A factor here is that in the Realms, magecraft attracts many egomaniacs, who more often crave lengthened years than those who see themselves as part of a larger social whole.
Lord Karsus 08-27-06, 08:30 PM	They were removed in the DMG because the combat-focused system of costing magic items didn't factor in factors like ageing. But not being in the rules doesn't mean they aren't in the setting. -True. Perhaps when Liriel Baenre allowed Drow to use their equipment/magic on the "World Above", she unintentionally took away the magical means to create Potions of Longetivity in the process. A factor here is that in the Realms, magecraft attracts many egomaniacs... -Magecraft attracts egomaniacs. That's insulting. Why, I ought to smite you where you are! My power is so mighty that I could simply do that with a thought! My power knows no bounds, indeed, so beware the might of Karsus the great, the most powerful arcanist to have ever lived! :)
Agent_of_the_Crown 08-27-06, 10:15 PM	The reason the Potion of Longevity disappeared was because there was general crackdown on immortality in 3rd edition. It was ok to stay looking young for a long time, but to actually be young (no penalties, and no death) was removed from the game. The fact it was a seemingly integral part of the game didn't seem to matter. Quite frankly, I am glad they did it. It now means more to be an Elf with an incredible lifespan. Before it meant very little as any Archmage could likely gain access to magics that extended their lifespans dramatically. Now they typically have Lichdom...:D
Selvarin 08-28-06, 02:50 AM	-True. Perhaps when Liriel Baenre allowed Drow to use their equipment/magic on the "World Above", she unintentionally took away the magical means to create Potions of Longetivity in the process. Nope.
Fabius Maximus 08-28-06, 06:07 AM	I personally don't mind Eberron, what bugs me is when they attack FR, one of my favorie CS, among Planescape and Ravenloft. Same with me here. I do not resent critique if it's expressed in a cool and sensible way. But there is as much spite coming from FR fans as is from EB fans.
Weiser_Cain 08-29-06, 02:50 PM	The reason the Potion of Longevity disappeared was because there was general crackdown on immortality in 3rd edition. It was ok to stay looking young for a long time, but to actually be young (no penalties, and no death) was removed from the game. The fact it was a seemingly integral part of the game didn't seem to matter. Quite frankly, I am glad they did it. It now means more to be an Elf with an incredible lifespan. Before it meant very little as any Archmage could likely gain access to magics that extended their lifespans dramatically. Now they typically have Lichdom...:D Yeah because it's sooo easy to become an archmage...
GothicDan 08-29-06, 02:53 PM	If you manage to survive the 95% chance of irrevocable death after the first 10 levels, it sure gets easier...
Mr. Beef 08-29-06, 10:42 PM	I cut my 3.0/3.5 teeth as a player on the Forgotten Realms. I was playing with a bunch of combat hounds that jumped in feet first into combat. We played in Cormyr and I must admit I had a good time even though it looked like we were facing impossible odds at some points we all pulled through, and I think I started out at 3rd level and ended about 10th level. I think I may still have my character somewhere. The only thing that I did not like that our Wizard was played by a guy who's character had high wisdom and intellegence, but did something to bug a guardian of an Elven tomb that I had to make a diplomacy (a skill I had no ranks in and a 10 CHA) check in (since I was the only Elf) to keep him from killing the Wizard. I had a reason to hate him in character for doing something that stupid. Almost gutted him with my longsword later on in the game, but the groups Monk talked me out of it.
Weiser_Cain 08-30-06, 12:46 AM	picked up the first dragonlance book and an old (mystara) boxset at random in a used book store
GothicDan 08-30-06, 12:56 AM	The only thing that I did not like that our Wizard was played by a guy who's character had high wisdom and intellegence, These stats, along with Charisma, are often the most problematic to reflect in roleplay. Str, Dex, and Con - you don't need to roleplay. They are physical characteristics that have no mental/emotional aspects. I get really annoyed at the same thing, actually. Also, another annoying thing is that the above three stats can be used almost interchangeably at times, often to accomplish the same goal using different methods. It's a well-known fact that I really dislike the Charisma mechanic itself (especially the 3E version), because it has such a vague definition. Would it be elitist of me to say that people who cannot roleplay stats properly should not be abel to play those characters? Probably not. Bad me! No telling others how to play their games and all...
Lord Karsus 08-30-06, 02:26 AM	Nope. -Hey, I'm offering an in-game explanation to something that was not given an explanation, in-game or out-of-game. Have you got anything better?
Selvarin 08-30-06, 02:35 AM	The Zhents never thought of Maalthiir as invincible. They fought to a stalemate over several pieces of inconsequential real estate. (Yulash, anyone?) but Hillsfar was blessed with the Zhents being split from within as well as being weakened from without in past years. I would think that the following had much more to do with the outcome: A) the return of Bane, B) making Fzoul temporal head of Bane's church in Faerun, with less emphasis on strife within the group, C) Fzoul's strengthened grip upon the Zhentarim (and Zhentil Keep) without Manshoon within the heirarchy to muddle things up, D) Mulmaster's covert annexation/accession to Fzoul and the emerging Zhent empire of the Moonsea (allowing him to concentrate upon closer matters)...shall I go on? Sarya was a sideshow to the greater conflict which was about to play itself out. Fzoul had all his ducks in a row, and he played his hand quite well.
Lord Karsus 08-30-06, 03:00 AM	The Zhents never thought of Maalthiir as invincible. They fought to a stalemate over several pieces of inconsequential real estate. (Yulash, anyone?) but Hillsfar was blessed with the Zhents being split from within as well as being weakened from without in past years. I would think that the following had much more to do with the outcome: A) the return of Bane, B) making Fzoul temporal head of Bane's church in Faerun, with less emphasis on strife within the group, C) Fzoul's strengthened grip upon the Zhentarim (and Zhentil Keep) without Manshoon within the heirarchy to muddle things up, D) Mulmaster's covert annexation/accession to Fzoul and the emerging Zhent empire of the Moonsea (allowing him to concentrate upon closer matters)...shall I go on? Sarya was a sideshow to the greater conflict which was about to play itself out. Fzoul had all his ducks in a row, and he played his hand quite well. (Wrong Thread!) ;)
Selvarin 08-30-06, 12:26 PM	(Wrong Thread!) ;) You know I really hate it when that happens. :whatsthis As for the Liriel thing, one can try that but it had nothing to do with the drow so sages would be scratching their goatees over it. It's just better to gloss over it like many game changes. Imagine all those poor folks with buff spells, finding out bull's strength fizzled after only a few minutes: "Great holy Mystra's moose, what the devil just happened?!" Those poor adventurers had their whole day planned, now they have to really think twice about when to cast 'em. Same goes for those who liked to fly to the local farmer' market, if not for a spare feather fall in their repertoire their morning would've started off worse than mine. (I really, really need my coffee this morning-and I will hurt smiley icons in order to get it, if I must.)
WhrenKehrsyn 08-30-06, 01:41 PM	Would it be elitist of me to say that people who cannot roleplay stats properly should not be abel to play those characters? Probably not. Bad me! No telling others how to play their games and all... I only partially agree with that, realistically I dont think the vast majority of us can actually play a 20+ Int or Wis. But I do agree, someone shold have some basic intelligence at least if they want to play a high Int character. About Cha, well, I know know some people who can charm the pants off just about anyone. Everyone is thier friend, everyone likes them, theyre given gifts and whatnot by people for no apperant reason, etc. And I wouldnt really call them all that wise or intelligent. In fact one of them is dumb as a rock, I really cant understand why people like him so much (im a friend of his even considering all that, and that I know it...). I use them as a sort of model on how a high Cha character works.
Selvarin 08-30-06, 01:49 PM	I only partially agree with that, realistically I dont think the vast majority of us can actually play a 20+ Int or Wis. But I do agree, someone shold have some basic intelligence at least if they want to play a high Int character. About Cha, well, I know know some people who can charm the pants off just about anyone. Everyone is thier friend, everyone likes them, theyre given gifts and whatnot by people for no apperant reason, etc. And I wouldnt really call them all that wise or intelligent. In fact one of them is dumb as a rock, I really cant understand why people like him so much (im a friend of his even considering all that, and that I know it...). I use them as a sort of model on how a high Cha character works. RPG's are all about playing characters who have characteristics or powers we may not possess. Playing an 8th level sorcerous Adonis-type with six-pack abs who can hurl spells based on the strength of his 'force of personality'? Yee-haw. One could always go the larp route, but that doesn't strike me as much fun.
WhrenKehrsyn 08-30-06, 02:10 PM	RPG's are all about playing characters who have characteristics or powers we may not possess. Playing an 8th level sorcerous Adonis-type with six-pack abs who can hurl spells based on the strength of his 'force of personality'? Yee-haw. One could always go the larp route, but that doesn't strike me as much fun. Oh, I know, I was just replying to the post that said: Would it be elitist of me to say that people who cannot roleplay stats properly should not be abel to play those characters? Probably not. Bad me! No telling others how to play their games and all... I was just saying if you shouldnt play characters whos mental stats you cant match we would all have to give up our cleric or wizard sooner or later when thier prime stat advances beyond our own. But I do think someone who has the intelligence of a dead moth probably shouldnt be playing a high Int character.
Selvarin 08-30-06, 07:06 PM	Oh, I know, I was just replying to the post that said: I was just saying if you shouldnt play characters whos mental stats you cant match we would all have to give up our cleric or wizard sooner or later when thier prime stat advances beyond our own. But I do think someone who has the intelligence of a dead moth probably shouldnt be playing a high Int character. True. The good part is that a character's stats can finesse even a dumb or outlandish decision. But stupid is stupid, and if one wants to charge a balrog armed with a spoon and a wand of lightning bolts then maybe their next character will cleave closer to their true ability. :)
BadCatMan 08-30-06, 09:41 PM	High Intelligence doesn't necessarily mean the character knows what they're doing. They could just be good at solving equations and magical formulae. In, everything else, they could still be as dumb as a post (much like the player).
GothicDan 08-31-06, 07:16 PM	I only partially agree with that, realistically I dont think the vast majority of us can actually play a 20+ Int or Wis. But I do agree, someone shold have some basic intelligence at least if they want to play a high Int character. I don't expect anyone who plays a Wizard to have an IQ of at least 135, but one of 110 would be nice. ;) About Cha, well, I know know some people who can charm the pants off just about anyone. Everyone is thier friend, everyone likes them, theyre given gifts and whatnot by people for no apperant reason, etc. And I wouldnt really call them all that wise or intelligent. In fact one of them is dumb as a rock, I really cant understand why people like him so much (im a friend of his even considering all that, and that I know it...). I use them as a sort of model on how a high Cha character works. I'm really not sure how even to try to mechanize social interactions. Even back in 2E's days, Charisma always bugged me, because it's so ambiguous. People who have 'high charisma' tend to get an immediate negative reaction from me, or neutral at best. Just as you said, "I can't really understand why people like (whoever)." What is 'charismatic' to one person might well be rude, arrogant, sickeningly humble, annoyingly extroverted, or depressingly pensive to another. I just don't like using social statistics that much. In the real world, people with similar personalities and interests tend to get along the best; there are exceptions, but we can take college or high school as a microcosm. How many of the geeks actually LIKE the jocks? How many of the jocks like the geeks? The 'in between' types don't seem to have a particular preference, either. The only statistically-founded application I could see of Charisma is the one that people tend to find the least useful: Appearance. We know, for a fact, that people who 'look better' (depending on cultural variations) get better initial reactions from people. We know that when someone's really good looking, peoples' minds actually don't work 'quite right.' Then, you have people who are 'good' at speeches and rhetoric. How do you define 'good?' The majority of speeches that I've heard (even "I Have a Dream") turned me off immediately. When I know someone is trying to use their tone of voice or their wording to evoke a response in me, I know that for some reason they'd rather use that method than providing solid facts, which means that I'd be reacting out of ignorance. I am very likely in the minority, but the D&D game treats Charisma as a hard mechanic that should be theoretically applied to every character regardless of personality or culture. Some people consider the laid-back, casual, blonde surfer type to be charismatic. I'm not sure if someone from a traditional Japanese upbringing would feel the same. I really don't trust the prudence or intelligence of people who claim they find something charismatic for some ineffable/transcendental reasoning. More often then not, said people usually just aren't as aware of their own emotions or thoughts, and why they're responding as they are to a person, as they should be. Another FR-specific example: Lathander is described as 'Charismatic' to the extreme. A LOT of people on these boards don't like him much. This is a bit of rambling, but I've waited long enough to get out my FULL "Charisma Ramble Speech." ;)
GothicDan 08-31-06, 07:19 PM	High Intelligence doesn't necessarily mean the character knows what they're doing. They could just be good at solving equations and magical formulae. In, everything else, they could still be as dumb as a post (much like the player). Of course they know what they're doing; they just might not be sure how the environment will respond to their actions. And the same part of the brain that handles mathematical equations also handles logic (the entire basis of which is trying to figure out the definition of a system and how it may change).
Selvarin 08-31-06, 08:09 PM	Some people consider the laid-back, casual, blonde surfer type to be charismatic. I'm not sure if someone from a traditional Japanese upbringing would feel the same. Watch a Japanese girl react to a Swede or other blond-haired, blue-eyed guy walking by. *off-topic, but hey it amuses me*
GothicDan 08-31-06, 08:36 PM	Watch a Japanese girl react to a Swede or other blond-haired, blue-eyed guy walking by. *off-topic, but hey it amuses me* Which sort of proves one of my points (the Appearance vs. Charisma part).
Selvarin 08-31-06, 08:46 PM	I tend to accept Charisma (in D&D) as more 'force of personality' than looks. In real life there are plenty of people who are attractive, etc., and as soon as they open their mouth the enchantment is broken. Likewise there are some very plain (or borderline unattractive) people who win people over either because they can articulate things well or can shmooze people. But in the latter case we have game skills that handle it better (Diplomacy and Bluff), so more so than any other it's the skill-end of it tends to overshadow the attribute that influences it. I suppose it would've been better had Comeliness stayed in the game to further set 'looks' apart from the rest of it.
GothicDan 08-31-06, 09:47 PM	And my point was, what the bloody hell is force of personality, and why should one person's personality be able to affect everyone else equally despite major differences in culture, religion, and personal preferences? I haven't met anyone who has swayed or affected me in particular by sheer 'force of personality,' at least not someone who was able to do that to everyone in general. I was pointing out that, often times, it's nothing BUT appearance that gives you that 'force of personality' aura. Good-looking jock types have to do nothing but grin confidently, lounge, and grunt, and have girls hanging on them (not stereotyping; there's a surprising prevalence of athletes on campus this year). The same goes for girls. There's a reason why good-looking people tend to somehow be popular despite being utterly devoid of any personality at all. They did studies where groups of students were sent out to door-to-door sails, with pre-prepared presentations, and across the board those who were considered 'better looking' had a higher sales ratio (the lighter-haired females in particular, EVEN when they were presenting to other females). Or is it possible that all blondes have a higher 'force of personality' naturally? Well, said study also had a female who was brunette to begin with; dyed her hair blond, did the same thing again, and got better results. What I'm saying is that Appearance plays a LOT more into social interactions than most people want to write down in game terms. There's no such thing as a 'force of personality' that universally affects everyone equally. As you pointed out, the things that are attributed to a 'high Charisma' tend to be better represented/overshadowed by existing Skills. Another good example is Hitler; he was pretty amazing at giving speeches, but was absolutely atrocious in any other form of social engagements.
Dark Wizard 08-31-06, 09:54 PM	This can kind of go both ways. All the people who play D&D might not be geniuses, but also not everyone who plays D&D is charismatic (whether good looking or articulate or charming or convincing, etc.). Charisma lets those who aren't super charismatic (whatever it may be) play a character who is charismatic in the game, just like any other stat. If a character is put into a social situation that has an important outcome, and no matter how hard the player role plays, the DM has final say on the outcome. What dictates whether or not the player was convincing, what if the DM is particularly strict and the player just couldn't convince the DM (at least not enough for the DM) but their character is supposed to be superhumanly charismatic and should have gotten positive results for the situation. What dictates whether a character was smart enough to decipher some ancient texts or nimble enough to catch that rope before the fatal fall? I think Charisma simply gives a mechanics based method to account for the impossible traits of fantasy characters, but it shouldn't be automatic. Just like if the rogue's player doesn't role play looking for traps or the wizard doesn't try to analyze and think about situations, those actions don't happen, just as the charismatic character who doesn't try to be charismatic and attempt social interactions shouldn't just have the dice rolling decide things. Of course this is all ideal and might not be how this is used in practice. To some social interactions are the easier things to drop from the game, but to some they are the meat and potatos.
GothicDan 08-31-06, 10:03 PM	This can kind of go both ways. All the people who play D&D might not be geniuses, but also not everyone who plays D&D is charismatic (whether good looking or articulate or charming or convincing, etc.). But most people at least have an IDEA of what Intelligence and Wisdom are. What exactly is being Charismatic? Charisma lets those who aren't super charismatic (whatever it may be) play a character who is charismatic in the game, just like any other stat. Yes, except it's the most ambiguously defined and hard to measure, if you ask me, though ALL of the mental stats are, to a point. What dictates whether a character was smart enough to decipher some ancient texts or nimble enough to catch that rope before the fatal fall? A) The character's linguistic and historical background, and his experience with putting together puzzles and problem solving. There's definite, concrete facts and research to base success or failure off of. Not so with Charisma; Charisma doesn't give you magical empathic abilities that you can use to divine a person's inner psychological nature or history. B) We can pretty accurately measure a person's reflexes (just as we can their speed, or heart rate). The physical stats are really the ones with the least problem interpretting, I think. .... More later when I've only had 12 hours of sleep out of the past 96.
Selvarin 08-31-06, 10:38 PM	And that (modifiers based on culture, etc.) adds way too much complexity to a game rich with complexity. However, what you say regarding the study would support adding Comeliness back to the game since it obviously has an effect on reactions. Split Charisma into Personality and Comeliness, anyone? the time when Charisma became hokey for me was during the implementation of 3rd Edition. Turn/Rebuke, sorcery being dependent on Charisma? Pffffft. But I got over that well enough. (Now switching the gnome's favored class to Bard in 3.5--that really chapped my hide, but hey I allow gnomes to chose that or Illusionist as favored so it doesn't matter in my game anyway...)
Dark Wizard 08-31-06, 10:43 PM	But most people at least have an IDEA of what Intelligence and Wisdom are. What exactly is being Charismatic? Well, it certainly is vague, but the various defintions given here, in the PHB, and other sources do give an "idea" of what charisma is. That definition just might not be as good as the ones for the physical attributes. Yes, except it's the most ambiguously defined and hard to measure, if you ask me, though ALL of the mental stats are, to a point. Very true, I would say Wisdom is definitely ambiguous and Intelligence far more than you think. I guess if you want to play it as comliness, you can. It's mechanically and even conceptually the same if not similar. Though, even for physical appearance, how does that work cross species, why are dragons and mind flayers "comely/charismatic" to humans. We know physical factors contribute, but a mental state is also invovled. A person who knows how to express themselves, and has no mental difficulties in doing so, will perform better in social situations. This has nothing to do with Intelligence or Wisdom. A person who is introverted will still be introverted even if they are intelligent or wise. A) The character's linguistic and historical background, and his experience with putting together puzzles and problem solving. There's definite, concrete facts and research to base success or failure off of. Not so with Charisma; Charisma doesn't give you magical empathic abilities that you can use to divine a person's inner psychological nature or history. B) We can pretty accurately measure a person's reflexes (just as we can their speed, or heart rate). The physical stats are really the ones with the least problem interpretting, I think. .... More later when I've only had 12 hours of sleep out of the past 96. The answers you gave to my mostly rhetorical question (I meant in-game mechanics for that question) involved a lot of factors. Intelligence, or even reflexes, is not a single factor, but the sum of many factors, perhaps even more than the sum, a sort of gestalt total based on countless interactions and cooperations between these different factors. Intelligence involves but is not limited to genetics, nutrition during development and growth, education and experience, current state or environment, and the ability to bypass any mental blocks to useful and creative thinking, amongst others (D&D terms include Int mod (which involved a lot of the above already), Skill ranks, helpful items, cirumstantial bonuses, etc). Physical attributes are under the same constraints, including current state and situational circumstances. Charisma as D&D presents it (even if they don't definite it as such - example: "Force of Personality" vs. Cloak of Charisma/Cloak of the Nymph) seems to be a combination of physical appearance and innate ability to articulate, communicate and express ideas (genetics and environmental), experience with social interaction and practiced skill (which is going into Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate) amongst other things. Charisma could possibly be folded into other attributes, but which ones and in which situation? I think it is done partly for convenience, charisma is a specific subset of skills and talent that cannot easily be described or explained by other attributes. So in the already abstract system of D&D, it's a separate stat.
TheDarkestOfAngels 08-31-06, 10:55 PM	But most people at least have an IDEA of what Intelligence and Wisdom are. What exactly is being Charismatic? Being charismatic means being able to motivate and affect others. Charismatic people are entertainers, the 'silver tongued', the super-hot, the leaders, the lawyers - all of these kinds of people are those who are 'charismatic.' Where einstein and hawking are known for their intelligence, gandi [or however you spell his name] and the stereotypical mountaintop 'wise monk' are all known for their wisdom, celebrities and leaders are those who are known for their charisma. Its defining difference between intelligence/wisdom and charisma is that charisma is essentially a person's ability to influence others and a charismatic person is especially good at this result. This is why charisma commands skills like diplomacy, gather information, and bluff. A) The character's linguistic and historical background, and his experience with putting together puzzles and problem solving. and this character might have such a background becauset hey are especially intelligent. An idiot isn't going to go into that kind of field and have 'experience and history in the related field' to be able to carry them to success where there might have otherwise been none if the character wasn't also more capable than average within that field. There's definite, concrete facts and research to base success or failure off of. Not so with Charisma; Charisma doesn't give you magical empathic abilities that you can use to divine a person's inner psychological nature or history. knowing a person's psychological nature or history is different from being charismatic. The former implies intelligence [research, knowing specific facts, ect.] and being charismatic doesn't necessarily mean knowing a person. It doesn't have anything to do with magic or divining anything. Its something of an aura of confidence - a power over other people and/or other living things. B) We can pretty accurately measure a person's reflexes (just as we can their speed, or heart rate). The physical stats are really the ones with the least problem interpretting, I think. Yes, but there are problems there too. Strength and dexterity all have to do with muscular action and have a lot of overlapping abilities where one thing one stat does can easily be justified with the other stat. For example, swinging a sword is done with strength and indeed the very force behind the swing [putting force behind the actual thrust of the weapon] can be attributed by strength, but the actual attack [aiming, moving the weapon quickly enough to not simply be dodged or deflected] is kinda the same thing as aiming a bow and actually firing hte arrow. How much of tumbling is putting enough force [strength] between the ground and yourself in specific manners in order to make your body move in the manner that it does? What about constitution... constitution in a sense is easy because a high con = healthy and a low con = sickly, but the interaction between the human body and the various diseases and state of existance is very complicated - because even the seemingly sickest people can be very resiliant and even the most resiliant of people can be felled with a relatively minor health risk - such as with an allergy. But I don't know. I think you're making a bigger issue with charisma than where one exists. From my perpsective, it makes no more or less sense than the other 5 ability scores.
Dark Wizard 08-31-06, 11:14 PM	And that (modifiers based on culture, etc.) adds way too much complexity to a game rich with complexity. However, what you say regarding the study would support adding Comeliness back to the game since it obviously has an effect on reactions. Split Charisma into Personality and Comeliness, anyone? the time when Charisma became hokey for me was during the implementation of 3rd Edition. Turn/Rebuke, sorcery being dependent on Charisma? Pffffft. But I got over that well enough. (Now switching the gnome's favored class to Bard in 3.5--that really chapped my hide, but hey I allow gnomes to chose that or Illusionist as favored so it doesn't matter in my game anyway...) Yes, Sorcerers based on Charisma was stretching things a bit, but compared to the other things that fantasy games require suspension of disbelief, this wasn't so bad. The concept of Charisma had origins as a semi-divine/mystical quality. I do wish they would have made the Sorcerer class more distinct than the 3e version of the sponteneous casting wizard. Then I wish they would have integrated sorcerers more into the setting rather than changing the Simbul's levels to sorcerer and calling it a good job. Hmm, seeing as how they changed Illusionist from a base class to a specialization in the 2e transition and killed off Leira, I wouldn't have minded a similar mini-RSE (a positive one for once) to explain sorcerers. Leira's return perhaps, with her own brand of spellcaster in the classic Illusionist/Enchanter archetype. Yeah, I'm just rambling half coherent ideas now. Back to the original topic.
Khaelieth 09-01-06, 05:58 AM	I don't like Eberron. It's full of unwashed heathens that need to see the light of Toril. Period.
Fabius Maximus 09-01-06, 08:16 AM	I don't like Eberron. It's full of unwashed heathens that need to see the light of Toril. Period. Do you care to elaborate?
Yaeri 09-01-06, 08:26 AM	I don't like Eberron. It's full of unwashed heathens that need to see the light of Toril. Period. I hope this was meant as a joke. Otherwise you can go sit next to those same people who bash Forgotten realms without grounds.
Nickpire 09-02-06, 01:41 PM	I was anti-Faerun for a long time because of the guy who always runs the FR games. Without fail, these facts are true of every one of the 5 or 6 game he's run: 1. We play without doubt in the Silver Marches 2. The story always follows the latest Drizz't book 3. Within the first 3 sessions we encounter Drow 4. Within the first 6 sessions we encounter Drizz't 5. Drizz't ends up bailing us out of a situation we were railroaded into 6. We regularly fight monsters way above our capabilities and survive only through luck, fighting a CR 17 giant with four level 6's for example) 7. Inevitably due to above complaint, we die horribly and which the DM shakes his head and says "it wasn't that tough!" 8. We can't ditch him because he's a good friend For those reasons I hated the setting, if I had to deal with his version of Alustirel, or Drizz't or any other big name NPC (which he threw at least one into every session) I was going to scream. However, I eventually bought the corebook myself and started to really like the setting because no matter what kind of game I wanted to run, there was somewhere in the FR I could do so. Most people who hate the realms have probably had experiences similar to mine, one person considers (Insert NPC here) his love child and the game suffers for it. There's a lot of variety in the realms which I like the most, it just took me a while to find it.
Selvarin 09-02-06, 02:52 PM	Yes, Sorcerers based on Charisma was stretching things a bit, but compared to the other things that fantasy games require suspension of disbelief, this wasn't so bad. The concept of Charisma had origins as a semi-divine/mystical quality. I do wish they would have made the Sorcerer class more distinct than the 3e version of the sponteneous casting wizard. Then I wish they would have integrated sorcerers more into the setting rather than changing the Simbul's levels to sorcerer and calling it a good job. Hmm, seeing as how they changed Illusionist from a base class to a specialization in the 2e transition and killed off Leira, I wouldn't have minded a similar mini-RSE (a positive one for once) to explain sorcerers. Leira's return perhaps, with her own brand of spellcaster in the classic Illusionist/Enchanter archetype. Yeah, I'm just rambling half coherent ideas now. Back to the original topic. The one thing I do like about the Sorcerer is that if you want to play a character who tosses fireballs and whatnot he doesn't have to be 'book smart' (not like wizards threw spells so 'smartly' either but hey...). The bad part for me is A) waiting until 4th level before getting back to the 'regular' spell progression (Toss it out in 4e!) plus the balancing factor of limited spells. Yes it's necessary but when you can choose only one spell of your highest ability it tends to put pressure to choose an offensive spell. I read an essay by Monte Cook on his website regarding how spelclasters (wizards in particular) were redesigned for 3e so as to make them more playable by giving them access to metamagic (which I don't consider much of a perk because of the way they affect spell slot usage) and item creation feats (which is a perk but they're all to spread out---why not lump Brew Potion with Scribe Scroll for wizards who have 5 ranks in alchemy or something?). I have to agree it's only part-way to a good solution for wizard types. True, illusionists are a specialty but they still work pretty well for gnomes. It wouldn't 3.5 to have kept the favored class as-is, then again it isn't a big deal. Most gnome characters I see are illusionst/rogue types anyhow. Oops, back to subject. The addition of sorcerers (and warlocks) to FR doesn't require anything big. It's easy enough to say they've always been there, just miscategorized in prior material. As for Leira, I liked her on one hand but on the other hand I don't. (Of course I can't stand Cyric taking over her domains either, which is a worse situation.) I tend to prefer the idea of some non-human deity becoming favorite for illusionist types. There's nothing in 3/3.5e thats against specialists from favoring one deity or another. As for hatred for FR, could be as simple as the Mac/PC rivalry, although I don't see quite the same kind of snobbery. Another could be (as mentioned previously) poor/monomaniacal DMs who have pet characters from the novels turn game sessions into events for that character to strut around, with the PC's relegated to obvservers in that fantasy. Verrry irksome. It's about as bad as a uncool (and annoying) person obsessing over a band you'd otherwise like. When it's shoved in your face so many times it's hard not to develop an Anything-but-that attitude.
Dark Wizard 09-02-06, 04:23 PM	I was anti-Faerun for a long time because of the guy who always runs the FR games. Without fail, these facts are true of every one of the 5 or 6 game he's run: 1...(snip) 8... ...(snip) Most people who hate the realms have probably had experiences similar to mine, one person considers (Insert NPC here) his love child and the game suffers for it. There's a lot of variety in the realms which I like the most, it just took me a while to find it. That sort of experience can ruin anyone's interest in any setting. In some ways FR gets a bad reputation due to immensely popular novel and characters, success has a cost, a negative side. Novels are an extremely biased microscopic view which cannot always completely and accurately portray a vast panoramic setting. Heck, some of the 2e sourcebooks were written with fictional author biases in mind, just because nothing in real life is certain to be absolute. This sort of thing can happen with any large and popular setting, like Raistlin and the entire Kender race in Dragonlance, Tolkien elves, Jedi in Star Wars, various Fiends in Planescape, the silent but badass character in any generic anime or action movie. Eberron will develop some too given time. When a character in the novels clicks with the readership/fandom, some DMs or players will want to use that character or emulate them. That can lead to problems if not handled adequately.
darkgeneral 09-02-06, 05:05 PM	I have played in a LOT of different campaign worlds, Dark Sun, Grey Hawk, Dragonlance, Ravenloft, Planescape, Birthright, and Hollow World, to name a few, but Forgotten Realms is the most well thought out, and diverse campaign world ever put together. That being said, there are things I do not like about the Realms. 1. The novels make no sense! Creatures die way too easily, and "certain" NPC's make killing high level creatures look way too easy. (Talk about power gaming)! 2. The campaign is UNBALANCED! The Archwizard series gave the game a new force of evil, a force of BALANCE. The series could have revived a tired campaign setting, but instead it ended unclimactically, and "certain" NPC's made it look way too easy, once again. 3. I always hear people bash power gaming, even though there are "certain" NPC's on the realms who have been around forever, and can beat ANYTHING, and make it look all too easy. (do you notice a common thread here)? Forgotten Realms is a great campaign setting, but the powergamers who write the novels need to take a step back, and realize that they are the ones not acting on their own advice!
Selvarin 09-02-06, 08:45 PM	I have played in a LOT of different campaign worlds, Dark Sun, Grey Hawk, Dragonlance, Ravenloft, Planescape, Birthright, and Hollow World, to name a few, but Forgotten Realms is the most well thought out, and diverse campaign world ever put together. That being said, there are things I do not like about the Realms. 1. The novels make no sense! Creatures die way too easily, and "certain" NPC's make killing high level creatures look way too easy. (Talk about power gaming)! 2. The campaign is UNBALANCED! The Archwizard series gave the game a new force of evil, a force of BALANCE. The series could have revived a tired campaign setting, but instead it ended unclimactically, and "certain" NPC's made it look way too easy, once again. 3. I always hear people bash power gaming, even though there are "certain" NPC's on the realms who have been around forever, and can beat ANYTHING, and make it look all too easy. (do you notice a common thread here)? Forgotten Realms is a great campaign setting, but the powergamers who write the novels need to take a step back, and realize that they are the ones not acting on their own advice! Here's the problem with using novels (and I will step very carefully here)...They're written so as to go beyond the general D&D rule set. That's why the battles hardly work out as they would during a D&D game session, save perhaps the higher-level ones. Over-the-top is often used to evoke the sense of wonder since, in many cases, the average (or above-aerage) adventurer PC won't ever reach that kind of strength and power. The upside is that we get to see a lot of things that we'd love to do ourselves and yet have many years to go before getting there, and by then we're tired and ready for something else. By the way, not all novels or trilogies should be expected to change or resolve something within the Realms. I'm rather glad of that, if what happens in the novels changes the game setting even more than it does then there will be howling the likes of which one won't see this side of the plane of Pandemonium.
The Ubbergeek 09-03-06, 01:27 AM	As I posted in another thread, the big names npc, your characters would probably never meet them unless they become BIG, and even them, they have other things to do of their times than help you probably. As in any other setting.. You are on your own, boys.
Yokinobu 09-04-06, 05:26 AM	RPG's are all about playing characters who have characteristics or powers we may not possess. Playing an 8th level sorcerous Adonis-type with six-pack abs who can hurl spells based on the strength of his 'force of personality'? Yee-haw. I agree that Charisma is an obscure concept, but that lies partly with the fault of little explaination on behalf of the ability. Dragon Magazine defines it simply as confidence, which I think is almost as vague, but it kind of gives us a lead. Though some people probably don't like this definition either, because it seems to imply that a low charisma cannot make a character with a high level of confidence. But while arrogance, experience, and assuredness may be seen as forms of "confidence", they miss the mark I think. In D&D, it seems to be implied in many cases that charisma is the will to exist and to be, more accurately the will to effect the world around you. In this sense, it modifies the concentration of the undead, the deflection AC of ghosts, and it is a charisma check that is required for a creature to regain it's natural form after being effected by a chaos beast's corporeal instability attack. It requires "confidence" to understand and experiment with sorcerous powers, as well as to produce effective spells, a confidence that cannot easily be explained by common understanding of the term. Suffice to say that wisdom and intelligence don't quite cut it for good ability scores on which to base a sorcerors power. I think one must come to understand that if charisma involves confidence, it is not the same much more mundane idea of confidence in RL, and charisma implies something much more in D&D. IMO, D&D definately widens the gap between the terms "awareness" and "self-awareness" in the wisdom of the monk and the charisma of the sorc. And my point was, what the bloody hell is force of personality, and why should one person's personality be able to affect everyone else equally despite major differences in culture, religion, and personal preferences? It's not simply the "personality" that affects everyone else. Assuming you can agree to the idea that charisma involves confidence, it makes perfect sense that diplomacy, bluff, and intimidate would all be modified by this ability score, because confidence is necessary to pull all of them off. Needless to say, charisma doesn't define how people react to you. A human with 30 charisma is still going to have to face the "unfriendly" social reaction of a racist sun elf upon first encountering him/her, and it would make perfect sense for the DM to apply penalties on charisma based skill checks in societies where a creature doesn't fit in. Further more, just like ever other ability score with it's related skills, charisma only slightly modifies social skill checks, so that a human rogue with average charisma and with 4 easy ranks in diplomacy and bluff at 1st level is just as persuasive as the fighter with the maximum charisma a human can have at 1st level.