| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| ranger_of_renwood09-20-04, 01:12 AM | I think it's safe to say that the FR is the most popular of the D&D campaign settings. This thread is simple, why do people like the Realms? |
| Suu'thien Fethomir09-20-04, 01:26 AM | Man, that's a hard question. For me it's many things. The art that has been produced for the realms is usually really something else. The cover art for the Silver Marches, Magic of Faerun, hell anything is just amazingly drawn. I love it. It produces the image of a very real world. Thats probably another thing about it, while it is a very fantastical setting, it's very real to me. All the literature and characters help a little teensy bit too, :D ;) |
| Another Gnome09-20-04, 01:46 AM | For me, it's the ability to spend time in the Realms even when I'm not having a game session, reading a novel, or playing the computer/video games set in FR. It's not daydreaming, but simply having the world in my head. That said, I wouldn't want Realms to be the default setting for D&D for the simple reason that the default setting is about rules, and it would inevitably require taking away some of the eccentricities and quirks in the way things work in the Realms. Even with the system tied-up to the rules as it is in the current system, there's still room to adjust Realms-specific things without resorting to all-out houseruling. |
| ranger_of_renwood09-20-04, 03:24 AM | For me, it's the ability to spend time in the Realms even when I'm not having a game session, reading a novel, or playing the computer/video games set in FR. It's not daydreaming, but simply having the world in my head. That said, I wouldn't want Realms to be the default setting for D&D for the simple reason that the default setting is about rules, and it would inevitably require taking away some of the eccentricities and quirks in the way things work in the Realms. Even with the system tied-up to the rules as it is in the current system, there's still room to adjust Realms-specific things without resorting to all-out houseruling. You make an excellent point about the rules, I never thought of it that way. Anyways, since I set up this thread, I might as well throw in my two copper. PROs Diversity: Everything you can ever imagine can fit in FR, it's that HUGE. Immersive History: I love how anything and everything within the FR has a story behind it. Artwork: Todd Lockwood's work is absolutely amazing. He and Sam Wood (among others, but I especially like these two) basically reinvented the look of D&D, and I am glad to see Todd working on new material for the FR. CONs Dark Elves: They're almost as common as surface elves now. Magic: Magic is so common in the FR that even a farmers have a +1 scythe of harvesting. I would put the games (i.e. Neverwinter Nights and Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance 2, and although I haven't tried Demonstone it looks really good) as a PRO but like I said before, the drow have become just too common, and this unforunately has spilled over into the computer and video games. |
| Lashan09-20-04, 07:27 AM | As with many other threads of a similiar vein, I say the level of detail in the game world. Forget statted NPCs or the number of spells. I like that the game world has been thought out and detailed in flavor. There is a rich history. The local pub has a good chance of being detailed. The cultures are detailed. It's a realistic world. |
| Primal09-20-04, 07:46 AM | As with many other threads of a similiar vein, I say the level of detail in the game world. Forget statted NPCs or the number of spells. I like that the game world has been thought out and detailed in flavor. There is a rich history. The local pub has a good chance of being detailed. The cultures are detailed. It's a realistic world. I totally agree. The background material alone is enough even without taking into account the diversity. Although I would not call it realistic since I am I Low-Magic fan... |
| Faraer09-20-04, 07:47 AM | In reading of or playing in the Realms, you're getting hold very cheaply of 37 years of love, as well as 17 years of corporate development and its share of love too: a secondary world that is at once firmly part of the fantasy tradition and a very particular and distinctive take thereon, determined by one very smart and well-read man, catalysed by the players in his campaigns, and expanded by divers hands. It's a world of great depth, terrific for-it's-own-sake detail, rich and quirky and steady imagination, considerable nuance and subtlety that doesn't make overt claims for itself, of pathos, humour and, not least, great compassion. It's popular for other reasons, too, but the above is why it's good. If it became the default D&D setting, though, at once the Realms would be altered to conform closer to new-D&D conventions that are alien to it, and D&D would cleave to aspects of the Realms developed independently of it and before it existed. Probably more the former, but both would be bad. The current official Realms already inherited more D&D traits than I think it should have.Magic: Magic is so common in the FR that even a farmers have a +1 scythe of harvesting.Why do people say obviously false things like this? The incidence of magic items in the Realms is not particularly high by D&D standards; not more than implied by the World of Greyhawk modules, say. |
| chme09-20-04, 08:02 AM | The major reason I DM the Realms is that there is so much written/being written about it. I used to run homemade settings, small dead commercial settings or newly started commercial settings before, but this always resulted in me having to put a lot of work into the bigger picture - like history, major politics, ethnography etc - in order to make the world come truly alive. I never minded doing that, but once I started DMing Forgotten Realms, I found a lot of that stuff had already been done, and I could concentrate on the smaller picture more than before, on plot, on NPC development on detail. I still have to work in order to make FR come alive, but it's different kind of work. I buy and read a lot of second-hand/new sourcebooks and novels, and when I write my own material, I can use what I've read as a background. All in all, I'm having much more fun as a DM, and I think that the roleplaying in our group has gotten overall better. I still think there are more interesting settings out there for a year or so of roleplaying, but Forgotten Realms is immense, and slowly growing in historic and cultural richness and depth. That's what counts in the long run. |
| schulerta09-21-04, 12:46 AM | Like Lashan, I think the best thing about FR is just the sheer amount of background material available for it. Troy |
| Another Gnome09-21-04, 02:14 AM | :behold: Check before making comments about "Drizzt's creator" (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=185204) |
| ranger_of_renwood09-21-04, 02:45 AM | Why do people say obviously false things like this [referring to my plug about magic]? The incidence of magic items in the Realms is not particularly high by D&D standards; not more than implied by the World of Greyhawk modules, say. (sigh) If only we were still able to talk about the novels here without possibly provoking the wrath of BigSister. BigSister - You are allowed to talk about novels so long as you talk about them as source material for a wider subject and not as works of literature. I highly recommend reading all the rules ;) |
| warlockco09-21-04, 04:09 AM | :behold: Check before making comments about "Drizzt's creator" (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=185204) I think this thread is heading towards being closed. Too many posting recently, have not read or are heeding the above link. Magic being too common in the Realms? Just depends on where in the Realms you are at. Calimsham, yes, they had all kinds of minor things, things like self-cleaning rugs and stuff. But that was in the hands of the wealthly though. I can't recall off-hand any instances of a sod-busting farmer with magical farm implements. |
| WizO_BigSister09-21-04, 04:52 AM | First point ... nasty and unconstructive comments about people who actually read these boards (and are entitled to the same protection under the CoC as any other person) are what got these novels rules imposed on the boards in the first place. Second point ... read this thread, ALL of this thread Novels - Important Info - Read This! (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=185204) I am happy to leave this thread open so long as people obey the rules. I do understand it is impossible to answer this question without talking about the novels ... this is part of the reason the WizO team has worked so hard to give you as much freedom to use the novels as sources as possible but still follow the rules imposed on these boards from elsewhere in WotC. It is allowed to say things like ... "One of the reasons I love the Realms so much is that the novels make it a much richer, many-layered 3 dimensional world that goes far beyond the restrictionsthat go with describing things as part of a set of rules. Remember rules have to simplify things a great deal in order to make a game playable. Novels don't!" btw this is what I actually think ;) It isn't allowed to either break the novels rules or debate the rules themselves and the way they are implemented. Sorry :weep: |
| schulerta09-21-04, 10:44 AM | Ge |
| Faraer09-21-04, 11:37 AM | I don't believe anyone actively likes the Realms just because there's lots of detail. If there was lots of detail but it was uninvolving and incoherent, you'd switch to another world in a flash. And ranger, feel free to cite that novel information. |
| druid berrymore09-21-04, 04:14 PM | I think that what makes the Realms popular is that fact that there are so many well developed areas with different flavours. Each person that picks up the FRCS identifies with a different area, group or NPC. |
| Tempus66509-21-04, 06:47 PM | why do people like the Realms? It's what I grew up with, and what I'm most familiar with (fantasy world-wise). I love the Realms just because :) |
| Charles Phipps09-21-04, 07:09 PM | I like the Realms because its the first one that seems geninely fantastic. |
| Cole Deschain09-21-04, 10:41 PM | I use the Realms for the very simple and somewhat painful reason that the "mood" doesn't require as miuch work as some settings, and I am a lazy, lazy guy. |
| Alisttair09-21-04, 10:53 PM | A place that I can visit and be familiar with through D&D, novels or video games. Also the fact that people I know visit it as well so we can discuss it and we all recognize the same places, characters and deities. That's why I love the realms. As well as the rich detail of course :) |
| chme09-22-04, 02:59 AM | I don't believe anyone actively likes the Realms just because there's lots of detail. If there was lots of detail but it was uninvolving and incoherent, you'd switch to another world in a flash. Well, believe it or not. The amount of material is the major reason I stick to the Realms. And I would presume to be the authority when it comes to knowing how I feel and what I'd do 'if' :). In my opinion, quite a lot of the material I have on FR can be called a bit incoherent, and there are many parts of it that I personally find uninvolving. But I don't change setting anyway, because I don't read my stuff as I would read a novel or an exciting treatise on this or that. Even the most incoherent and uninvolving 2e section with portals, powerful magic objects and yet another way to Undermountain might hold a grain of info that I can use, and it's that grain I'm after in order to discover more of Faerūn. There's a general yet special feel about the world that I like a lot, and also good amounts of material that is well-written and involving. But the *major* reason for me using FR is still the sheer amount of material that, coherently or not and involving or not, gives depth to the world. What really keeps me hooked is what I can do with the stuff, not what the stuff does to me. |
| Faraer09-22-04, 08:04 AM | So you have mostly a utilitarian like based mostly (but not solely) on the detail, with a minor active like based more on the special feel. It's just that I've read a decent few people who do love the Realms say it's for the bulk of information while conveying clearly that it's for other reasons too that are less simple to articulate. |
| chme09-22-04, 08:39 AM | chme <-------- bored at work :) You got me thinking Faraer, and if we are gonna come at this from a theoretical angle, we have to ask: what is the Realms? I would argue from a constructivist understanding of fiction or fictional worlds, that *any* appreciation of the Realms would be 'utilitarian' by definition, as the Realms would be what people made them. This might be a pretty adequate way to look at a RPG setting, but you can actually stretch it a bit to include reading in general: fiction is what the reader creates by using the text (its structures, cultural tools, gaps, etc). When someone says he/she likes the Realms because there's so much written, but at the same time talking about ambiance, characters, concepts, etc, it needn't be a contradiction, since they are in fact talking about the fiction they construe/create with the help of all that material. As to *how* this construction of the Realms happens is likely very individual, and I can only speak for myself: some texts (that *are* coherent and involving) helps me or pushes me into an almost automatic evocation of images, scenarios etc. This ressembles what happens when I read novels. Other texts that aren't as coherent or involving forces me to come at it differently - I need to know approximately what I'm after and kind of extract it. The sheer bulk of material makes it less important which way it is - if I can't do it one way, I can do it the other. Oh well, enough of reception aesthetics :). |
| Faraer09-22-04, 09:55 AM | Yes, that's pretty much the distinction I was making. For myself, it's not worth the time doing the second, analytic kind of construction when there's so much material available that I do love. |
| Shemeska the Marauder09-22-04, 11:34 AM | I wouldn't mind the Realms being the default, however it's unlikely to happen given the hackjob that is the 3e Realms cosmology. Seriously, while Toril is my favorite prime material world to use, and half the PCs in my campaign are from there, the obliteration of planar continuity in 3e for the Realms smells like a four day gas leak. Besides the issue of continuity the realms cosmology lacks the level of detail and frankly, the level of inspiration present in the Great Wheel/Planescape cosmology that is currently the default. Such won't prevent me from using the Realms as a setting, but it will make me ignore anything published therein about the planes. Comparing Planescape to the 3e Realms cosmology is like comparing the original Frank Herbert 'Dune' books to the pastiche published by his son and Kevin Anderson, or comparing original H.P. Lovecraft stories to the pastiche of August Derleth. Harsh but IMHO accurate. |
| Another Gnome09-22-04, 01:40 PM | Comparing Planescape to the 3e Realms cosmology is like comparing the original Frank Herbert 'Dune' books to the pastiche published by his son and Kevin Anderson, or comparing original H.P. Lovecraft stories to the pastiche of August Derleth. Not to mention comparing Uncle Scrooge by Carl Barks to that of Keno don Rosa. All style, no substance. These new-age people just can't hold a candle in the passing of wind from the old times. :weep: |
| Telagaunt09-22-04, 03:17 PM | I do not think FR should be the default D&D world. The default D&D world is and should be almost like a blank canvas. Something to give anyone interested in D&D the tools to make what they want. Kind of silly IMO to have it as FR (or any other novelist campaign) where, sure you can change what you dont like, but not everyone likes FR, or wants a set campaign setting. Some people prefer a more default (like it is now) setting where almost anything you want can be in play. But anyway, I love FR, I really don't know why. The BG CRPGs is what got me interested and it expanded from there :D Guess I'm too lazy though to try any other campaigns (aside from Ebberon). But I like high fantasy RPGs, but I like more low key ones too (like GH). But with a high fantasy world, I can make a high level character and not really upset the balance of things. |
| Forsaken_Rocker09-22-04, 04:31 PM | To start with, it's how i discovered d&d, I was (once upon a time) a guy who picked up a book with a cool cover, looked at the back, then bought it (with no reccomendation or anything) so oneday I'm absently walking through Barnes and Noble when !Wallah! a book with a guy wielding two curved swords fighting off a whole bunch of hairy things with big hunking weapons on the cover. Looked at the back and bought it thinking that l(like the pile of other books on my shelf) that id probly read half a chapter and set it down and forget about it. Lets just put it this way, I WAS WRONG BEYOND POSSIBILITY. Now I've read all of the Drizzt books. And am a D&D addict. I think FR is so popular because of its celebrities (no joke) a model of someone you can always try to copy, but never exactly. To follow in their footsteps, and maybe, if your dm is nice, meet them! Also, it has a very interesting history, a great list of gods, and interesting cities. FR has captured my soul and countless hours, and is undoutedly a Geeks paradise |
| ArnimThayer09-22-04, 09:44 PM | My love of the Realms stems from the fact that it is MINE! I have been playing D&D in some form or other since I was 12 starting with the first box sets to come out. Greyhawk was the world my brother chose to run. By the time I was ready to DM, the "old grey box' detailing the Realms was out; I chose to be different. I am a happy owner of every book, box set, source book and novel that the FR have put out and I love them all (even the ones not so well written :) ). I still run the Realms, adapting every five years or so to keep up with the times. The numerous sources make it not only easy to run (for the lazy), but easy to BELIEVE, and therfore easy to immerse oneself in. |
| ranger_of_renwood09-27-04, 04:41 PM | And ranger, feel free to cite that novel information. In the most recent War of the Spider Queen novel, two members in a team of loggers had magical weapons, although one had a somewhat reasonable back story behind it. In Realms of Shadow, there was a tribe of Uthgardt barbarians (who shun magic) that discarded all their magical items and ended up with quite a substantial pile. In a fan fic I read recently (I understand that it's not real FR, but just goes to show that other people have a similar notion of how common magic is in the FR) a groundskeeper was able to cast clerical spells. |
| Moscone10-05-04, 05:20 AM | I like the Realms for a number of reasons, but the main ones being that there's something in it for every player/DM. You want psionics? It's there. You like samurai? it's there. The diversity is staggering. Ed Greenwood certainly deserves a lifetime achievement award for creating it. However, whether you are a drow fan or not, keep in mind that it's the fans that turned them into a mainstay, not the writers themselves. The writers are giving fans what they want, and that's a good thing. It's a mindboggling number of players who run drow characters, and the fact that drow society is just as well detailed as the surface folk says they're here to stay. Like any element used a lot in the Realms, when you see so much of it, it's because the fans want it. The more we want, the more we get, and that's the main thing that's nice about Forgotten Realms. |
| Ranger REG10-06-04, 04:05 AM | I think it's safe to say that the FR is the most popular of the D&D campaign settings. I have long argued (though not on the forums) that FR should become the default campaign setting for D&D. This thread is simple, why do people like the Realms? Why? Because FR is not a standardized vanilla D&D game. Greyhawk is the archetypal D&D setting, but FR is atypical. That what attracted me to it. |
| ranger_of_renwood10-06-04, 05:44 AM | Why? Because FR is not a standardized vanilla D&D game. Greyhawk is the archetypal D&D setting, but FR is atypical. That what attracted me to it. I have since changed my stance on that issue since my original posting. Largely due to what Another Gnome had to say... That said, I wouldn't want Realms to be the default setting for D&D for the simple reason that the default setting is about rules, and it would inevitably require taking away some of the eccentricities and quirks in the way things work in the Realms. Even with the system tied-up to the rules as it is in the current system, there's still room to adjust Realms-specific things without resorting to all-out houseruling. My original belief as to why the FR should become the default campaign setting for D&D was very similar to why Moscone likes the FR. Toril is so huge and so diversified that almost anything that you can think of can fit in it. I admit, I don't know a whole lot about Greyhawk. I guess one could say it was before my time or at least before I started DMing (which I have done almost exclusively in 3rd Edition and now 3.5). I've noticed that material exclusively pertaining to the FR (especially in the case of prestige classes) are being incorporated into other D&D works. Perhaps this is because Wizards wanted to update these classes for 3.5, maybe not, I don't know. All that said, I now see why people would object so strongly to the FR becoming the default setting for D&D. I'll definately have to look into Greyhawk more. |
| Junon Ghostblade10-06-04, 10:27 AM | There are many different reasons to love the Forgotten Realms. I personally find the Realms to be a wonderful place where anything can happen and any type of character can be made. It allows for everything from medievil Europe, to asia, to the arabian to the ancient roman empire styles and everything in between. |
| Burzmali10-08-04, 09:24 PM | Why the realms? I think that there are one good answers for that question: Its because its a fantastic world, plenty of magic, heroes and villains of all types. There are elves, dwarfs, gnomes, halflings, humans, orcs and many other races. Light and dark, good and evil are the ingredients of that world. These are all the ingredients of a good fantasy history and I like It very much. I think i need to say Thank You Very Much for this fantastic world |
| protonik10-09-04, 01:43 AM | I go with the Realms for a lot of reasons. The biggest key, not just to their success, but to their longevity, is that they support any kind of campaign you can imagine without going off world or outside of the established cosmology. Can you run a horror game? Yes. Can you run a Buffy like game? Yes. Can you run a desert survival game? Yes. Can you run a Round Table-ish game? Yes. Egyptian pulp fantasy adventure? Yes. Wilderness survival and frontier excitement? Check. I really like the Realms for these strengths and it has done nothing but improve since the 2e glut of products and some poor implementation of ideas that occured therein. I love me some 3e Realms and some 1e Realms... Jason |
| greaterbaatezu10-09-04, 06:39 AM | For me it's many things from mundane to fantastic. The realms' ecologies make sense. You don't have a tropical jungle right next to temperate areas like grayhawk does (on the same latitude anyway). Nor do you have Japanese-like people living next to Turks or frenchmen like grayhawk does. It's module series make sense geographically (anyone ever play against the giants which has your pc's travelling thousands of miles?) The political infrastructures are more thought out. It's really well fleshed out by novels, modules, and sourcebooks, but leaves things open so a DM can do something different if he likes. Ingrained characters have more background on them and are better fleshed out aswell. Everyone knows to stay away from the Blackstaff's tower (also where it is, in a major metropolitan, rather than somewhere with a cheesy name like valley of the mage <how insipid>) unless you're invited, and that Elminster is NOT someone to go dump evil artifacts on because the pc's don't want to deal with it. Where does mordenkainen live again? The realms has alot of "movers and shakers" in it that AREN'T GODS, so the players might feel like their characters, at later levels, can partake in some of that moving and shaking without being some other being's marrianette (maybe just prodded by them subtly). I could go on and on, but I won't. TFR is the best camp world of DnD, and the idiot who made the decision to try to make GH the big money maker is just that, an idiot. Notice sales aren't as good as they could be? Anyone heard that if DnD doesn't start making better money that Hasbro's gonna kill it? I'm gonna be ultra ticked off if my favorite RPG gets yanked cuz someone put Gygax back in the saddle. |
| Junon Ghostblade10-09-04, 10:13 AM | I go with the Realms for a lot of reasons. The biggest key, not just to their success, but to their longevity, is that they support any kind of campaign you can imagine without going off world or outside of the established cosmology. Can you run a horror game? Yes. Can you run a Buffy like game? Yes. Can you run a desert survival game? Yes. Can you run a Round Table-ish game? Yes. Egyptian pulp fantasy adventure? Yes. Wilderness survival and frontier excitement? Check. I really like the Realms for these strengths and it has done nothing but improve since the 2e glut of products and some poor implementation of ideas that occured therein. I love me some 3e Realms and some 1e Realms... Jason Actually there J, if it wasn't for 2nd Edition, you wouldn't have the Realms that you love oh so dearly. |
| Shemeska the Marauder10-09-04, 10:21 AM | Actually there J, if it wasn't for 2nd Edition, you wouldn't have the Realms that you love oh so dearly. So much of the coolest material for FR came out during 2nd ed. So much so that I find it a pity I never played FR (or DnD for that matter) before 3rd ed. The flavor of many of those 2e products (though no the rules) were head over heels superior to the average 3e product which tends to be generic and filled with the philosophy of 'you can't be expected to own more than the core books' and as such contain little to no cross book continuity and cross referencing. |
| Straploknight10-09-04, 10:48 AM | It's what I grew up with, and what I'm most familiar with (fantasy world-wise). I love the Realms just because :) Thats right! When FR first appeared it won't yo daddy's campagin world. |
| protonik10-10-04, 01:45 PM | Actually there J, if it wasn't for 2nd Edition, you wouldn't have the Realms that you love oh so dearly. Really? WOW. In 2e I was playing Planescape and Vampire for the most part when the Realms went to heck. I am glad they put them back together then, was that late 2e? It wasn't the 2e mechanics that drove me away from the Realms, I like 2e, I play 2e once a week. What drove me away from the Realms during 2e was the glut of products and the inconsistency of the products and saying they were all good is unrealistic. I didn't like being told that I had to buy an OOP book (FR Adventures) or wait for the deity books (a year after the boxed set was released) in order to use specialty priests. What brought me back was that the FRCS captured a LOT of the same feel of wonder and excitement that the 2e boxes lacked. JG, stop trolling me. You disagree with me, that is life, move on. Jason |
| Faraer10-10-04, 02:52 PM | The Realms' diversity is real, and I know that many like the 'it can be anything you want' factor, but that's also the thinking behind the lowest points in TSR's treatment of the setting, the shoehorning in of stuff that belongs nowhere near the Realms in tone or worldbuilding philosophy. Wizards has thankfully put an end to most of that, and is cleaving more strongly to the core feel and rhythm of the Realms, which is to say, what the Realms is. It's misleading to talk of '2E products'. The rules are incidental to the setting. Take, instead, 1990s products, which happened to have been published when the current ruleset was 2E. And looking at 1990s products you clearly see some of the very best -- Ed's books in the FOR series, the Volo's Guides, Ruins of Undermountain and Myth Drannor, Faiths & Avatars and the follow-ups, Steven Schend's work -- and some of the worst. |
| GothicDan10-10-04, 03:44 PM | My favorite setting is first and foremost Planescape, but considering how few people actually enjoy that enough to play it, the runners up are Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms. Ed Greenwood, Eric Boyd, and Steven Schend rock. Enough said. |
| Junon Ghostblade10-10-04, 04:45 PM | Really? WOW. In 2e I was playing Planescape and Vampire for the most part when the Realms went to heck. I am glad they put them back together then, was that late 2e? It wasn't the 2e mechanics that drove me away from the Realms, I like 2e, I play 2e once a week. What drove me away from the Realms during 2e was the glut of products and the inconsistency of the products and saying they were all good is unrealistic. I didn't like being told that I had to buy an OOP book (FR Adventures) or wait for the deity books (a year after the boxed set was released) in order to use specialty priests. What brought me back was that the FRCS captured a LOT of the same feel of wonder and excitement that the 2e boxes lacked. JG, stop trolling me. You disagree with me, that is life, move on. Jason I wasn't disagreeing with you or Trolling you, I was only pointing out the plain and obvious fact that the realms are the way they are today because of 2nd ed. How you get me going around disagreeing with you is beyond me. There was never a disagreement there in the first place. I think maybe you need to stop taking everything someone says as an attack. Geez man, get over it, I was only making conversation. |
| protonik10-10-04, 11:05 PM | I apologize JG, getting a little defensive on my part. I understand that a lot of the root of the 3e book is in 2e but I think that the FRCS partakes far more of the OGB than the Gold Box. It just seems fuller, more wondrous and better done. While some of the 2e material may be good, I think that the Planescape material was better done and higher quality than what was going on in FR. I was a BIG fan of the OGB and FR series and Ed's fluff is some of the best but there was a period when FR was just total burn out for me and a lot of my friends. Jason |
| GothicDan10-10-04, 11:24 PM | Mmm... Planescape's the best.... |
| Junon Ghostblade10-11-04, 11:09 AM | I apologize JG, getting a little defensive on my part. I understand that a lot of the root of the 3e book is in 2e but I think that the FRCS partakes far more of the OGB than the Gold Box. It just seems fuller, more wondrous and better done. While some of the 2e material may be good, I think that the Planescape material was better done and higher quality than what was going on in FR. I was a BIG fan of the OGB and FR series and Ed's fluff is some of the best but there was a period when FR was just total burn out for me and a lot of my friends. Jason Apology accepted dude, no hard feelings, trust me. Planescape was very well done. I played in a FR Campaign and when we all reached between levels 10 and 14 the DM took us into Planescape. It was an easy transition to make and it was a ton of fun. I really would like to see Planescape redone. As for you and your friends opinions on 2nd ed Realms, it's too bad you guys feel that, there really is some great stuff out there. Sea of Fallen Stars and Calimport, Lands of Intrigue and Empires of the sands were some of the best stuff released at the end of the realms. I recommend them if you ever get the chance. |
| protonik10-11-04, 11:25 AM | I agree there was some great 2e FR products but the product line as a whole didn't inspire me enough to want any of it. In retrospect there are a few things I would love to have like Evermeet, Undermountain, City of Splendours, Kara Tur, and I would love to get my FR series supplements back, Dwarve's Deep was spectacular. Outside of that I just don't see the need now nor the quality then. Jason |
| Lashan10-11-04, 11:57 AM | I am of the opinion that Ed Greenwood would have produced much of the same material in 1E or 2E. He just got started at the end of 1E, but TSR really opened up FR when 2E came out. I don't think it was because of 2E that FR is big. FR products just happened to come out during 2E. I am under the opinion that there were many good and many bad products that came out under 2E's watch. |
| vooood10-11-04, 12:41 PM | FR should become the default campaign setting for D&D. This thread is simple, why do people like the Realms? first of all i can't agree with your first statement. i think that FR can't become a default setting since it is a high magic world (a variant in the original d&d). furthermore it is a... hmm... designed setting that gives you a finished world and it isn't customizable enough for some dm's... furthermore there are too many books on FR for it to become a default setting... some people just have the core books and are not willing to buy more books just to play a world they do not like... i like the core books and the default (no) setting that allows us to create a world as we like it... and to answer to your question... i like the realms because i find it the most complicated setting with millions of plots and no two campaigns that would ever interfere (simultaneous)... |
| protonik10-11-04, 03:20 PM | FR isn't any higher magic than Greyhawk. During much of 2e FR was essentially the core setting and was bought to be the NEW setting for AD&D2e. FR was essentially the default setting until the shift in product focus when 2e Revised came out. FR is still the default D&D setting in all but name because when you hear about a great new D&D game or comic it is set in the Realms. the AD&D comic from DC was set in Waterdeep as an example, almost all the late 80s and early 90s PC games were in the Realms etc. FR flavour text became default D&D flavour text, right down to the PHBR series. Heck, Tome of Magic was a BIG part of the Forgotten Realms and Wild Magic was only supported in the Realms officially. Crossover adventures between different setting always seemed to focus on ... and the Realms or ... and the Realms. I think the big shift happened when TSR got out of the setting push and started focusing on boxed adventures like Night Below and Dragon Mountain and the Monstrous Arcana and Tomes series of works. Essentially when People like Cook, Cordell, Williams etc. really got going in TSR. The Return to the Tomb of Horrors and Rod of Seven Parts were generic enough but you can tell it was the beginning of the shift to less Realms and the return of Greyhawk because the adventures, while being generic, were certainly more Greyhawk influenced than FR or DL or whatever influenced. Jason |
| vooood10-11-04, 04:35 PM | looks like we misunderstood each other... a default setting for me is a setting that comes included in the core books of a system :) |
| greaterbaatezu10-12-04, 05:11 AM | I am of the opinion that Ed Greenwood would have produced much of the same material in 1E or 2E. He just got started at the end of 1E, but TSR really opened up FR when 2E came out. I don't think it was because of 2E that FR is big. FR products just happened to come out during 2E. I am under the opinion that there were many good and many bad products that came out under 2E's watch. I know FR got really big towards the end of 1e... but ed's been around since the beginning of FR... it's HIS campaign world (or atleast his brainchild). Not to mention that the bloodstone series (an FR series) isn't too much older than tomb of horrors. There indeed WERE some bad products that came out in 2e, but alot less than in 3e in my opinion. There alot of ideas in 3e that are just too MONTY HAUL. Arcane archer? Free +5 arrows? I think NOT. NOT ever in my campaign. NO ONE gets free magic items... EVER. This is just one example... I could name a few more if I pulled out the books and started reading. I *might* allow the pc to exist, IF the player running it was willing to PAY the XP for them. Otherwise, forget it. I DO give wizards in my campaign the "standard" magic item creation feats for free. I don't believe it's fair to make wizards, who have so few feats to spend in the first place, burn the few they get in so many different directions. I think it's fair enough to make them spend the xp to make them and call it good. Especially since the saves against items are so HARD to fail. I also don't like how the metamagic feats work. Blow more feats, and then blow your spell capacity making your spells able to do any real damage (so pay and pay again). A 6th level spell wasted for a lousy 60 pts of damage (max. fireball for instance), when the things your gonna be facing at that point in the campaign usually have over 200, is ludicrous in my personal opinion. A character of 12th level plus should be able to be useful for more than two encounters before needing rest. Now, a 60 pt spell in 2e was pretty darn good, since a great wyrm red had a maximum of 168 (unless you used the rules in council of wyrms, which COULD get it over 200). I'm sure the writers thought they were balancing things out, but wizards really took it in the shorts if you ask me. |
| Lashan10-12-04, 06:56 AM | I will admit that there are things in every edition that I have edited out. The free magic or masterwork items are something that I don't allow in my games, either. Items need to be earned in my games. PrC's, a few low level items, and feats are not the worst that has been seen in any edition. The idea of the "Chosen" and Silverfire are far worse things to inflict on a DM. Now, every player wants to be a Chosen of and have silverfire. Sure, 3E added Shadow Magic to the list, but the previous ones from 2E are more Monte Haul then anything else. |
| GothicDan10-12-04, 08:58 AM | Greaterbaatezu, I TOTALLY agree with you. The reason why I hate having feats for wizards is because of Item Creation and Metamagic feats. If I ever ran a 3E game, I would throw those right out the window and go back to making them based on spells. A wizard's strength should be his SPELLS... Not the ability to have 'kewl abilities.' It also seems a bit ridiculous to me that you can 'start out' with magical items if you're ECL is high enough. But that's probably because the max level I've ever started in a game for the past 9 years was 4th, and that was in the most recent 2E game. That beig said, Chosen and Spellfire.... Um. Right. Chosen. I don't think we should be comparing the unique servants of deities, which seem to be more of a plothook than anything else (at least how Ed first designed them), than 'typical' player options. Sure, maybe once in your career of AD&D you might have a Chosen, but the rest of the time your character SHOULD be in awe of people with these awesome capabilities. But.. Eh. 3E has nerfed theme and mood for mechanical balance, in my opinion. I'm not a big fan of balance for the sake of balance. It's like decreasing a novel's length by 100 pages just because someone tells you that you have to do so. |
| Lashan10-12-04, 11:18 AM | I thought the metamagic feats only enhanced spells. That still means a wizard's strength is his spells. Personally, I've even stayed away from metamagic feats. The level bump is a bit much for most spells. It isn't really worth it and doesn't necessarily overpower wizards at all. Also, I really like the item creation feats. There are finally good rules for making magic items!!! It takes time, money and exp to make items and I usually follow the rule that a caster has to have seen an item before he can make it. That limits the players ability to just make a bunch of ultra powerful magic items. Usually the items are based on the spells a wizard can cast, too, so the STRENGHTH of a wizard is sitll his spells. I just don't get the thought that in 3E a wizard is all about some special abilities besides spells. As for the Chosen of only showing up occasionally, I wish that was the case. It seems like every campaign has at least one character that is chosen of somebody or another. It's trite. Also, I am not trying to butt heads and argue. I'm only stating my opinion that 2E had a bunch of obnoxious Monty Haul stuff at least just as much as all other editions of DnD. Feel free to disagree. |
| GothicDan10-12-04, 11:45 AM | I thought the metamagic feats only enhanced spells. That still means a wizard's strength is his spells. Personally, I've even stayed away from metamagic feats. The level bump is a bit much for most spells. It isn't really worth it and doesn't necessarily overpower wizards at all. The only metamagic feats that I really ever touch are Quicken Spell and Maximize spell. But even then, in 2E, the thing is you had SPELLS that were metamagic... Not feats. You had spells that could do this and that, so you could effectively get all of the same things in 2E without having to give up other abilities (which you would if you had to choose metamagic feats over other feats). And by the time you bump up a spell to the appropriate level with a metamagic feat, chances are that you can find an equally good spell to do what you're trying to do by that level anyway. Also, I really like the item creation feats. There are finally good rules for making magic items!!! It takes time, money and exp to make items and I usually follow the rule that a caster has to have seen an item before he can make it. That limits the players ability to just make a bunch of ultra powerful magic items. Usually the items are based on the spells a wizard can cast, too, so the STRENGHTH of a wizard is sitll his spells. They had rules for making magic items in 2E, too, expanded in Spells and Magic, which was wonderful for that, if nothing else. The majority of 3E items just feel like generic spell batteries to me. And how many magical items do we hear of in mythology and legends and tales? Did Gandalf have dozens of magical items lying around? Did the wizards and witches of myth? Sure, they might have had little trinkets, but they were rarely useful in anything related to combat. The 'magical items' we hear about are more than not Artifact-level things, and that's more the feel that the 2E rules gave them. And if you didn't like that, they had optional kits and spells you could use to change it, but I liked 2E's base of magical item creation much better. And Item Creation feats are just another example of taking away from a wizard something he could do with spells, and making him blow feats on doing it instead. So basically, all of the other classes get nifty feats and abilities, but to give a wizard the capability that he had in 2E with JUST spells, you would have to purchase effectively every metamagic feat and every item creation feat. Doesn't seem very fair to wizards. And, in closing.. 2E had more Monty Haul because it was around a heck of a lot longer than 3E, so far, in my opinion. 3E has the monty haul FEEL to it. When something has more rules, more stats, etc., staring up at you from a book, that's what your mind locks onto - numbers and crunchy bits. And 3.5 is full of them, and they're presented in an encyclopedic format to promote fast and easy memory access. But wouldn't you want to focus on remembering some really cool bit about culture or history than numbers? I guess it just depends on what one wants out of a game.. |
| Faraer10-12-04, 11:55 AM | It was Ed who, in Dragon, pioneered in the larger D&D culture magic items as unique historied things. Their treatment in the new D&D, as production-line commodities defined by their bonuses and by the straitjacket-equations of 'game balance', is opposite to the Realms' approach. Volo's Guide to All Things Magical expounded in satisfying detail the intricate and time-consuming labours of magic-item construction, not as rules but as part of the working of the setting, long implicit in how magic has been seen to occur and be used in other sources. The job of a ruleset is to represent the setting as transparently as possible, not to arbitrarily replace parts of it with its own different (and in this case soulless and unpoetic) assumptions. |
| ClobberinTime10-12-04, 03:53 PM | Yeah, but lets ask the other question- how often were you disappointed when you got the stats in 2e on this or that item and saw- Ah its just a bracers of armor +5 and fire resistance. In 3ed its the history and who has used the items that make them well known. Also there are no rules for making artifacts which are still pretty special. As DM you can increase the specialness of certain items, Maybe they open portals or some monster has a specific reaction to them, they don't need to be powerful just useful. Also One shots are great, forge a sword to kill that Demon, but it only does extra dmg to him and costs less in the creation. Your characters should be pretty legendary around level 15 or so, and who knows maybe someday someone will crave your headband of Int just because it had been yours. |
| GothicDan10-12-04, 04:02 PM | Yeah, but lets ask the other question- how often were you disappointed when you got the stats in 2e on this or that item and saw- Ah its just a bracers of armor +5 and fire resistance. I hope you're going for an answer of "Never" here, because that's what my answer is. In all of my time of playing AD&D, my characters had had the following magical items (besides potions/scrolls): a ring of invisible fire shield, a ring of lie detection, a wand of magic missiles, and... Um. A little sphere that, when broken, released Otiluke's Freezing Sphere once. Yup. In 3ed its the history and who has used the items that make them well known. Also there are no rules for making artifacts which are still pretty special. And it's even moreso in 2E. |
| Lashan10-12-04, 04:57 PM | It seems to me that the RARITY of magic items is what bothers you the most. It seems that it is far easier for people to create magic items in 3E then it was in 2E, and therefore they loose their special status that they had in 2E? I've a few things to say on that. In 3E, you can still limit the amount of magic items you want in a campaign world just as much as you can in 2E. Perhaps people just don't make magic items that much? Or perhaps the DM can limit the item creation feats? I've found that characters are usually running around too much to sit around magic all these magic items. I've had most of my friends complain that they are useless feats as the rest of the party refuses to sit for a week or more while the magic item is being created. Personally, I think that the item creation feats make the magic user more useful in an adventure. How many times have you played the wizard who has used up his spells and has to just dodge death until the party decides that the group needs to rest? The wizard with the Wand of Ray of Enfeeblement isn't overpowered or destroying the level of magic and uniqueness in my games (at least to me). Also, I recall near the end of 2E FR that magic items were a dime a dozen. It seems that every person that you bumped into had a +1 this or that. This level of magic highly contradicts the earlier version of magic shown by the unique items Ed G. detailed in Volo's Guide TATM. You look at the +2 to hit/+0 damage longsword and shrug later in the 2E products. |
| GothicDan10-12-04, 05:18 PM | It seems to me that the RARITY of magic items is what bothers you the most. It seems that it is far easier for people to create magic items in 3E then it was in 2E, and therefore they loose their special status that they had in 2E? In part, yes. And the fact that the easier something is, the lazier people get about it. Even the DMs would get lazy if they had everything pretty much laid out for the players in a book with a few feats in it. I've a few things to say on that. In 3E, you can still limit the amount of magic items you want in a campaign world just as much as you can in 2E. Perhaps people just don't make magic items that much? Or perhaps the DM can limit the item creation feats? I've found that characters are usually running around too much to sit around magic all these magic items. I've had most of my friends complain that they are useless feats as the rest of the party refuses to sit for a week or more while the magic item is being created. I don't know about you, but I don't sit around all day trying to find fixes to problems in a game when it's easier just to use information that we already have and works better for what we want. :) Personally, I think that the item creation feats make the magic user more useful in an adventure. How many times have you played the wizard who has used up his spells and has to just dodge death until the party decides that the group needs to rest? The wizard with the Wand of Ray of Enfeeblement isn't overpowered or destroying the level of magic and uniqueness in my games (at least to me). No, but it DOES change the theme of the game that 2E (and 1E to a point) were going for. Part of the reason why wizards were so uber is because for the first 8 or 9 levels it was damn hard to play one without getting killed. So you EARNED that power, the hard way, instead of just being a person with what is effectively a magical gun. You look at the +2 to hit/+0 damage longsword and shrug later in the 2E products. I didn't. :) |
| Shemeska the Marauder10-12-04, 05:22 PM | Ed Greenwood, Eric Boyd, and Steven Schend rock. Enough said. Amen. And, perhaps as an aside, it was a 3e FR game gone Planescape that first introduced me to Planescape, and since then FR has looked as generic as Grayhawk to be frank. I still enjoy FR for the level of detail it has, but I've adored Planescape ever since far more than anything else. I seriously like Schend's stuff that I've been able to get a hold of from earlier editions. |
| GothicDan10-12-04, 05:30 PM | And, perhaps as an aside, it was a 3e FR game gone Planescape that first introduced me to Planescape, and since then FR has looked as generic as Grayhawk to be frank. I still enjoy FR for the level of detail it has, but I've adored Planescape ever since far more than anything else. I seriously like Schend's stuff that I've been able to get a hold of from earlier editions. FR 2E is tied as my favorite setting with Dragonlance 2E after Planescape. I've noticed that Planescape fans tend to be a touch more intelligent and creative than your typical gamer, which is why I believe it never took root as strongly as it might have. It didn't have the 'feel' that most gamers wanted towards the end of 2E. Well, at least, it didn't have the 'feel' that most would-be gamers would like at the time. I got into Planescape by reading all of this stuff online about crazy monsters like the "succubus" and "balor." I was about 12 at the time, and I had been searching for like a year (I had started AD&D at 10) for the books detailing those cool monsters. Finally I picked up the Planescape Monstrous Compendium Volume I in Walden's and I squeeled with delight. After I got the Planescape Campaign Setting, I fell in love. If Planescape was a person, I would marry it. |
| ClobberinTime10-12-04, 06:44 PM | I've noticed that Planescape fans tend to be a touch more intelligent and creative than your typical gamer, which is why I believe it never took root as strongly as it might have. Yeah I totally agree, its the narrow minds of the primers that has ruined it all |
| ranger_of_renwood10-12-04, 09:20 PM | first of all i can't agree with your first statement. All right, I'm editting the initial post on the thread so I don't get any more of replies like this, refer to some of my more recent posts. |
| Yamo10-14-04, 02:57 PM | Sure, maybe once in your career of AD&D you might have a Chosen, but the rest of the time your character SHOULD be in awe of people with these awesome capabilities. Um, right. Because I don't play to be a real epic world-saving fantasy hero, just to gasp in awe at whatever NPC the GM (or a sourcebook) has decided will fill that role. I think not. As for why FR will never be the default D&D world, there's a few reasons. First, religion in FR doesn't work in the same way that it does in core D&D. You can't gain spells from worshipping a pantheon as opposed to a single patron diety. You also can't get spells from following an abstract force or philosophy (nature, chaos, etc). You can't even be raised from the dead after a certain point if you don't have a patron diety in FR. All of these concepts contradict how divine magic works in core D&D. Secondly, the cosmology is all wrong. Core D&D uses the Great Wheel. FR doesn't. Finally, it's my personal hunch that GH was chosen as a core world instead of FR at least in part because FR is so overwhelmingly mage-centric and Good-dominated. This is bad for core D&D, which needs to embrace the usefulness of all classes equally and needs to have a core world where heroes are more urgently needed to fight off the tide of evil. |
| GothicDan10-14-04, 03:40 PM | Um, right. Because I don't play to be a real epic world-saving fantasy hero, just to gasp in awe at whatever NPC the GM (or a sourcebook) has decided will fill that role. Oh, I'm sorry. I guess I interpretted roleplaying game a little too literally. Perhaps they should rename it, "Become the most powerful person ever" game? |
| Yamo10-14-04, 03:47 PM | Oh, I'm sorry. I guess I interpretted roleplaying game a little too literally. Perhaps they should rename it, "Become the most powerful person ever" game? Try watching a fantasy movie or reading a fantasy book one of these days. Fantasy is about heroes, not the sidekicks of heroes. Fantasy roleplaying is about being heroes, and not being the sidekicks of heroes and watching passively in "awe" as the genuine articles do their things. Perhaps you have a different idea of what fantasy roleplaying is all about, but if so, it's not consistant with the genre as a whole. |
| Shemeska the Marauder10-14-04, 04:17 PM | Secondly, the cosmology is all wrong. Core D&D uses the Great Wheel. FR doesn't. Hardly. FR has only had a different cosmology for a few years, and it has only been elaborated 'fully' for under a year at this point. I would put money on most games played in the Realms that deal on any level with planewalking use the Great Wheel rather than the new FR cosmology. |
| GothicDan10-14-04, 06:04 PM | "Try watching a fantasy movie or reading a fantasy book one of these days. " Yes. Because I don't read the Sword of Truth, the Wheel of Time, and the Song of Ice and Fire Trilogies. Because I don't have 40+ Dragonlance books, a dozen and a half FR books, 4 Planescape books, and 2 Ravenloft books. I don't have a total of 200+ fantasy novels. I don't own Lord of the Rings, Excalibur, Merlin, Dragonslayer, Record of Loddoss War... Should I go on? I don't own 8 swords, two axes, two cloaks, a dozen and a half daggers, a sword-cane... I haven't spent over 1,000 dollars in RPG materials over the past 9 years. My walls aren't plastered from one end to the other with figurines, posters, and paintings.. I think I have a pretty good idea of the fantasy genre. And we all know how much A*S KICKING that FRODO did. |
| Stig10-14-04, 06:14 PM | Um, right. Because I don't play to be a real epic world-saving fantasy hero, just to gasp in awe at whatever NPC the GM (or a sourcebook) has decided will fill that role. I think not. As for why FR will never be the default D&D world, there's a few reasons. First, religion in FR doesn't work in the same way that it does in core D&D. You can't gain spells from worshipping a pantheon as opposed to a single patron diety. You also can't get spells from following an abstract force or philosophy (nature, chaos, etc). You can't even be raised from the dead after a certain point if you don't have a patron diety in FR. All of these concepts contradict how divine magic works in core D&D. Secondly, the cosmology is all wrong. Core D&D uses the Great Wheel. FR doesn't. Finally, it's my personal hunch that GH was chosen as a core world instead of FR at least in part because FR is so overwhelmingly mage-centric and Good-dominated. This is bad for core D&D, which needs to embrace the usefulness of all classes equally and needs to have a core world where heroes are more urgently needed to fight off the tide of evil. Wot? :OMG! are you talking about? Seems to me that roleplaying is what you make of it no matter what system you run. D&D is currently the most adaptable of all systems and that means that you don't have to slavishly adhere to the core concept; you can make of it what you will. This also means that if you choose a world that diverges from the core rules or from what basic fantasy is , in your opinion, all about (your point in a later posting) then you are keeping the spirit of roleplaying alive. I've been gaming for some 25 years (I started young!) and this sort of "purist" argument has been seen before, and only to the detriment of the hobby as a whole. Play some different systems, genres and with diverse groups of people and you might realise that we are all just trying to enjoy ourselves rather than ruleslawyer! |
| Yamo10-14-04, 06:55 PM | And we all know how much A*S KICKING that FRODO did. It's not about kicking ass. It's about being the only ones who can get a particular job done when the job in question is of great importance. Frodo didn't have an understudy that would have stepped in and carried the Ring to Mount Doom if he was killed by orcs at the edge of Mordor. Aragorn didn't have a younger brother who could have been crowned the King of Gondor if he was slain. There was no other do-gooder wizard capable of guiding the Fellowship to success if Gandalf had not went along. On the other hand, if there are other crusading hero NPCs in a campaign that can do everything your characters can do except many times better as a result of being virtual demigods, that's a problem. Because if the PCs fail, well, no big loss. Just call in the big guns and they'll do it right. This is the core notion which almost all heroic fantasy fiction revolves around that I think you're missing entirely. |
| GothicDan10-14-04, 07:04 PM | It's not about kicking ass. It's about being the only ones who can get a particular job done when the job in question is of great importance. Which you can do whether you're level 1 or 100, if the DM sets it up as such. Frodo didn't have an understudy that would have stepped in and carried the Ring to Mount Doom if he was killed by orcs at the edge of Mordor. Aragorn didn't have a younger brother who could have been crowned the King of Gondor if he was slain. There was no other do-gooder wizard capable of guiding the Fellowship to success if Gandalf had not went along. Let's see. The last time I checked those were all pretty iconic characters. They are the equivalent of the Storm Silverhand, Elminster, and Manshoon types of the Realms. We didn't hear a whole lot about the NPC heroes of myth, because they WERE the heroes. And I would have considered Gandalf an NPC if anything. On the other hand, if there are other crusading hero NPCs in a campaign that can do everything your characters can do except many times better as a result of being virtual demigods, that's a problem. Because if the PCs fail, well, no big loss. Just call in the big guns and they'll do it right. You start small and work big. Just like in the real world, if you haven't noticed. And you use your personality and you make relationships with others to help you get to the top... So, you roleplay. Was the Fellowship of the Ring magically present in Middle-Earth? No, it was forged through roleplaying, with the characters - be they NPCs or PCs - interacting over years, even if it always wasn't with each other. Saving the world is obviously a staple, but that's hardly the only thing. Obviously if you think that the most important thing in a fantasy RPG is POWER POWER POWER, you're playing the wrong game, considering it's based on balance. Techinically, in the LotR, Galadriel or Elrond could have stepped in and kicked some evil tail around. But they didn't, because they were NPCs.. NPCs that awed the PCs with their mystique and power. |
| Yamo10-14-04, 07:09 PM | Techinically, in the LotR, Galadriel or Elrond could have stepped in and kicked some evil tail around. But they didn't, because they were NPCs.. NPCs that awed the PCs with their mystique and power. Mystique, yes, but their power was that of another Age. Long-faded and impotent in the face of a resurgent Sauron. Obviously if you think that the most important thing in a fantasy RPG is POWER POWER POWER, you're playing the wrong game, considering it's based on balance. Quit being silly and read what I actually wrote. Saving the world is obviously a staple, but that's hardly the only thing. Still, Saving The World, usually from a Dark Lord, is at the core of the genre. Epic fantasy after Tolkien has always been the most popular form of fantasy fiction. It probably always will be. |
| GothicDan10-14-04, 07:11 PM | Oh, yes. I will quit being silly now. Of course. Yes sir. |