Lately I've been reading a lot of posts where people complain about the changes made to FR for the
4e campaign guide. One poster described it as an "abomination" while another said it was "unplayable". In contrast, I know a friend of mine who is running a 4e FR campaign and he says he has never had so much fun playing D&D. I took a look at his FR 4e campaign guide and it appears to be a quality product, although a little light when it comes to naming the most important NPC's. In general though, I don't see anything that would make me describe it as an "abomination".
Out of pure curiosity, I ask the following question: Can someone please summarize for me what it is about 4e FR that gets so many people angry? thanks.
I'm a long time D&D player (1st to 4th ed.) who never really got into Forgotten Realms. I've dabbled in it over the years and read a few novels, but have never jumped into the deep end when it comes to a campaign or lore.
Then I would recommend 4th Edition Forgotten Realms to you. It's definitely easier to get into for a new player compared to older editions - it's the other side of the coin of Goldomark's comments. Less fluff and a large time jump means there is reading you have to do before jumping right in. What you see is what you get.
Out of pure curiosity, I ask the following question: Can someone please summarize for me what it is about 4e FR that gets so many people angry? thanks.
Goldomark largely summed up why so many people are angry. There were some drastic changes made to the Forgotten Realms in its transition from 3rd Edition to 4th Edition. Some of those changes were made to help integrate the FR to the new ruleset, but most of the changes were made to give novel authors more room to grow their stories and to make it easier for a new generation of players to jump into the setting.
To use an analogy the 4E FR is like drinking out of a water fountain compared to a fire hose. In the analogy, the water is the lore / setting fluff. In previous editions there was tons of it - you could literally spend days and days reading novels, flipping through source books, and searching the internet for information on virtually any topic.
This was awesome if you were a veteran of the setting and knew what was going on, but it also created a barrier of entry for new players. It's the equivalent of trying to read a 10 book series, but instead of starting with book one, you start with book seven. Each book may be an awesome stand alone story, and you may enjoy book seven through ten, but you're still at a disadvantage when trying to deal with someone who started with book one.
That is what changed with 4th Edition, and naturally, those who had been with the setting for a long time felt angry as a result.
That said, I don't think its a terrible product in and of itself. Its just not a product that necessarily reflects the history and continuity of the previous incarnations of the Realms. If you don't care of know about that history or continuity, then I doubt 4e would seem as bad to those of us who did. Looking back though, the chain of destruction started in earnest with 3e (some would argue that it started with the Time of Troubles, and there's a certain truth to that), where a lot of subtle and minor retcons began sneaking into things here and there... 4e shouldn't have been as much of a suprise as it was in retrospect.
A few DDI articles, that is it. Fluff fans are a bit frustrated.
There are 40+ articles. That is still a fair number.
And a lot of old lore still applies. I have used it, quite frequently, though yes, it does need some creativity to account for the time jump and spell plague.
Gomez
In addition to the above, a lot of people were mad about the huge drop in deities in the Realms. There were 5+ deities for Orcs, Dwarves, Elves, Drow, halflings and different deities for the various nations and cultures of humans. It was (IMO) a bit much. Espically when many of those deities got little more than a quick blurb or sidebar in 1 source book and no where else. Sure, options are great but they over lapped so much that it made them seem trivial.
Also, along with the time jump was the fact that WotC was bend on not printing novels set in the earlier time periods. So we never found out what happened to many beloved characters in the past century and probably never will.
Not to mention the removal of Lantan, Unther, and Mulhorand and the destruction of most of the Shining South along with Halruaa. These were places people really liked (though I'd disagree a bit) and with them gone, they felt upset and angry that they no longer exist.
Plus, people were mad because Mystra was murdered, and not only that, but she was murdered by a deities many dislike (Cyric and Shar) because being all "shadowy" is fun now or some-such. Personally, I could really care less. I liked Mystra but I hated her Alignment and the fact that NONE of her Chosen were evil or at least not good. (Yes, I know Khelben was LN but he was still a good fellow).
And I concur that there was a large amount of NPCs which (statted out in the FRCS) were very epic in level. And not only in the campaign setting book, but nearly every source book WotC put out about the Realms had 12th+ level people fully statted out (and statted wrong in many cases).
...Can someone please summarize for me what it is about 4e FR that gets so many people angry? thanks.
There were definitely a lot of setting changes, from killing off powerful NPCs and gods to making radical changes in the landscape and planar organization, and many of them were changes that older fans questioned in terms of "necessity," but the biggest problem was in how the older fanbase (particularly "lore enthusiasts") were 'handled' for lack of a better word. I'll get to that in a second, but the rundown of obvious changes were:
1. Killing off the gods of magic. The murder of Mystra by Cyric was somewhat forced, and now Azuth and Savras are dead. Azuth was ultimately absorbed by Asmodeus, who then becomes a god himself. Both the Weave and the Shadow Weave were destroyed.
2. Many other Faerun dieties that were popular (like Eilistraee) were killed, and many others have been "revealed" to merely be aspects of other deities suggesting that they never existed as separate entities. Some don't make a whole lot of sense, like Talos "always having been" an aspect of Gruumsh... or the revisions to the elven goddesses.
3. Parts of Toril exchanged parts with Abeir, Toril's "sister planet" made long ago by Ao. This was done primarily to introduce the dragonborn and swap out an entire nation on Faerun (Maztica being the biggest swap, but also other places in the East). Thing is, though, we already had "dragonborn" in the Realms... but they didn't match those in the 4E core rules.
4. Many mages were said to have gone mad or died during the spellplague. Halruaa suffered the worst, as it was blasted from the face of the planet leaving behind a dangerous wasteland.
5. A rupture in the deep floor of the Sea of Stars lowered the sea level in areas by up to 50 feet, dumping a ton of water into the Underdark and changing the surface (ports change to match, etc).
6. Elves in general were "simplified" by revamping the Eladrin and making a number of changes to Elf lore in the Realms.
7. Mutant monsters can be found in pockets of spellplague, the "Plaguelands" or plaguechanged lands dotted around Faerun.
8. Some lands have altered strangly, including motes of land that are now free-floating. Thay got a major landscape revision, in addition to a political makeover a-la-Sauron and Mordor. It's populated by undead and other evil creatures. But why? Those areas were minimally developed even in 3.5 lore.
9. Finally, we have a 100-year time gap, to push through the spellplague and the recovery. This not only separated the "old" from the "new" in terms of continuity, by letting nearly all of the old NPCs to die but also to create a clear gap between editions. Designers encouraged people to wrap up old games and campaigns, and leave 3E in the past.
Other changes were made also, but those are among the "biggies" that were made. On the surface, were any of these things that "ruined" the world or made it an "abomination"? If you're completely new to the Realms, or haven't played the Realms in ages, then it's normal to wonder what the hubbub is all about. In fact, I'm sure that it can seem pretty silly for people to fight over things, or lament the fact that we have earthmotes and pockets of lingering plaguelands.
But I'll make a different sort of argument, and I hope it helps in terms of understanding the previous "lore enthusiasts" and why many of them felt that they were abandoned and why they think this is an "abomination" to play. Largely, it has a LOT to do with feelings, and how emotionally invested they were, which will be difficult to understand unless you personally felt this way... but here goes:
First, the changes were announced as radical and "more fun that you ever could've had" in the old game. This worried a lot of people, but we were assured again and again that "they knew best" and we apparently didn't. This soured a lot of people from the beginning, as it became very clear quite quickly that the changes were being made to benefit the designers, future authors, and not for current fans (who, for the most part, just wanted more lore or expansions on current lore).
Second, the doom of powerful NPCs was announced and we waited and watched as they slowly, publicly executed many well-loved NPCs in an almost gleeful and malicious manner. Qilue and Eilistraee were among the first, and it wasn't enough to simply have them die. Eilistraee was destroyed, and Qilue's soul was destroyed along with her goddess. This wasn't a heroic death, as the ultimate changes made could have been accomplised without the gleeful malice. Many of Mystra's former Chosen would eventually get this gleeful malice treatment, and some even pointed out that a lot of those killed off were powerful female NPCs... make of that what you will. Watching while they trotted out other well-loved NPCs and brutally got rid of them, it was like the designers had no respect for the old fans. Why not just kill them off or give them some tagline saying how they died heroically? Nope!
Third, some of the changes were really just inexplicable and ruined or destroyed things simply for the sake of "simplification" (which is the antithesis of rich, detailed lore). One example of the bizarre was the soap-opera quality story of Helm's murder as part of a mistaken love triangle. It didn't make any sense... although it was clearly based on real-world mythology, it just didn't logically make sense in Faerun. Halruaa was wiped from the planet, for no apparent reason other than the fact that it was mostly a "good" nation with a lot of mages.
Fourth, we were treated to a comprehensive and detailed Grand History of the Realms (which is excellent) right before the knife was taken to the lore. It's not that the old lore was removed or changed (it wasn't) or had any large-scale revisions (it didn't), but the new 4E Realms were going to be made "lore-light" to attract new fans. So those who loved rich and detailed lore, we should enjoy the Grand History because the knife was coming. The "knife" was the 100-year jump, which removed 90% of the continuity of the setting. Everyone you "knew" would be long dead and buried, and all the places you were familiar with and loved, they're 100-years different even if the spellplague didn't radically alter those areas. Khelben's dead, the Harpers are gone, even the Zhentarim and Red Wizards aren't what they used to be. Sure, Waterdeep, Cormyr, and the western lands are mostly the same, but 100 years is a long time and you can't just say that things are exactly like they used to be 100 years ago.
Fifth, even though feedback was loud and angry on multiple forums, it was clear they weren't listening to the old fans. Plans were set in stone, and novel after novel, article after article, just re-affirmed this "we know better than you what is fun and good, you just don't" attitude felt by the older fans. New fans, particularly those who liked very dark and/or post-post-apocalypse worlds, started positively expressing their like of the new lore-light and streamlined/simplified Realms. This really just drove a wedge in the overall fanbase and created a schism. How could new fans understand the old fans perspective? After all, isn't it just a game? Isn't it "better" to have most things left up to the DM for creative purposes? Well... yes... and no.
Sixth, the nail in the coffin for older fans is probably the over-riding fact that they could have taken a much less heavy handed approach to the Realms, or at the very least could have taken a less snooty "we know better" attitude and just made the minimum necessary changes (like they did for Eberron). Because if you're one of the lore enthusiasts that is still around after all of this, it's more than obvious that they could have saved a lot of what was loved and still made changes to better the setting. Ultimately, we still have the same exact problems that plagued the Realms in the first place. Instead of an "all-powerful Mystra ruining everything" we now have an overbalanced Shar and Cyric who get away with everything because they have plot armor. The complaints of too many powerful NPCs is now just turned around: instead of asking why the Chosen don't show up to save the day, now it's more a question of why all these extremely powerful evil NPCs (Szass Tam, Fzoul Chembryl) haven't managed to blast Faerun into dust. And anyway, weren't the biggest complaints about Elminster and Drizzt? Seems awfully hypocritical to keep them around.
The Realms were first introduced, back in Pages from the Mages in Dragon magazine, as a world where long-lost magics were always ready to be discovered. Lost tomes of great power could be found in ancient ruins, but one had to brave incredible danger. Old and mysterious magical items, from swords and staves to gems and utilitarian objects, they also awaited discovery and the proper hand to use them. But in the day-to-day affairs of most men, people were somewhat ordinary as farmers and tradesmen without the use of high magic.
As for these ancient ruins with hidden troves, they weren't just random hidden halls. They had a deep history to them... they were ruins of long-dead civilizations like Netheril, Illefarn, Myth Drannor, and Athalantar. They weren't just some random roll on a Gygaxian table for "you stumble on an ancient ruin" but they had a fleshed out history of their own. People wanted to know more of that history, they wanted novels, and so canonical novels came along.
The overall feel of the Realms, if you started at first level, was that you were a part of this highly detailed world with a rich and detailed past. There were always people more powerful, because that is the nature of a realistic world. This is also technically true of all games out there, even "points of light" settings, because you always need to have enemies more powerful than your players (or at least a challenge to them). The Realms, like Greyhawk, also had good NPCs that were more powerful than the players, but the key difference was that the Realms novels featured those good NPCs as protagonists. And since the novels were canonically tied to the Realms, people demanded stats on those good NPCs... and some DMs overused them and allowed those good NPCs to overshadow their players.
But even if you had great DMs, over time the "long lost magics" of gaming articles were incorporated into storylines and novels. This undermined one of the original intents of the game-side of the Realms: if you have the powerful good NPCs getting all the good loot and magic, and have them spread it throughout the Realms (or worse, make it only usable by them), then all of those good adventure hooks get used up and the PCs start to feel overshadowed by the NPCs even if they never meet them in game. The richness and detail of ancient history loses its power in the game, because it's been discovered by Elminster, or Khelben, or Storm and everyone with access to a novel knows that stuff.
Furthermore, we now know that Elminster and others of Mystra's chosen were charged with making magical items and putting them in places so adventurers would discover them. That's just stupid, because even if it is happening that way it's just plain dumb for us to ever know it on a "meta" level. It destroys the whole feeling that you've accomplished an Indiana Jones and have come out of that ruined tomb with a real and genuine bit of old magic, lore, or knowledge. Because you haven't: Elminster was there, doing his stupid epic stuff and probably even put down an extra layer of dust to get your clothes dirty. It calls into question all of the history we know about every ruin in the Realms. For lore enthusiasts, who love detailed history and arguing over bits of "truth" in the Realms, this is a gigantic problem.
Because of all that, the Realms definitely needed to be refreshed. There's no question about that, really... although they could have spent time detailing other less-detailed areas, like Rashemen or Vaasa, or areas in the East and distant South, or even on other continents that didn't yet have a name, the tendency for novelists was to have epic fiction that quickly made areas well-known and populated by a cast of good, powerful NPCs. But even had they done a few more novels in new areas, the basic problems above would still be there.
Another "bad idea" element that became pervasive, which was first introduced in 2E, was that the gods were often used as NPCs and portrayed as either too simplistic or stupid to exist. When gods are no longer mysterious and inscrutable, but become rather dopey NPCs who made very dumb decisions, they lose their credibility. I think the general idea of the Time of Troubles was to show them to be somewhat like the Greek gods in Xena and Hercules, but the overall plan just fell hard on its face because the writing and execution was poor. In turn, this further damaged one of the original intents of the Realms - to have gods that were mysterious and somewhat unknowable. By the end of 3.5E, these goofy NPC gods were everywhere, and it wasn't good.
Meanwhile, Greenwood was publishing things that lore-enthusiasts really loved, and which were really very valuable things for DMs: the numerous Volo guides, and free articles you could get off the late TSR and early WotC website. These were recipes of foods and drinks you could get at various Inns throughout the Realms, or tiny adventure hooks about this and that happening in Waterdeep. Sadly, too much emphasis was (because of TSR) placed on not showing the depths of evil organizations and the true nastiness of villains in the Realms but rather on the constant triumph of good over evil. So the Harpers, the Chosen, all the powerful good NPCs and organizations... they become more and more overbalanced, seeming more and more Mary Sue and Gary Stu all the time, and the setting starts to take on a bit of a Pollyanna-ish gleam. Couple this with too many Epic novels, and attaching random areas like Mulhorand and Maztica in a kitchen sink fashion, and the Realms can clearly be seen as having a lot of problems that needed fixing.
So it isn't that there weren't problems that needed fixing. There definitely were some major things that should've been changed, and the setting as a whole needed to be refreshed. It's more the way they chose to do it (yet another Epic, world-shattering thing), and that many of the changes made didn't really fix the original problems. Instead, we get a massive break in continuity and a lot of changes that either don't help or fix the original issues. The changes do make things better for future novelists, but by the time these things all become problems again (and they will), this set of designers will probably have been promoted and it won't be their problem.
But even if you had great DMs, over time the "long lost magics" of gaming articles were incorporated into storylines and novels. This undermined one of the original intents of the game-side of the Realms: if you have the powerful good NPCs getting all the good loot and magic, and have them spread it throughout the Realms (or worse, make it only usable by them), then all of those good adventure hooks get used up and the PCs start to feel overshadowed by the NPCs even if they never meet them in game. The richness and detail of ancient history loses its power in the game, because it's been discovered by Elminster, or Khelben, or Storm and everyone with access to a novel knows that stuff.
This is what I hated as well. I really really really detest novels being canon and the whole reason they needed the 4E Spellplague situation was because of this. Instead of doing something logical like Eberron or Dark Sun, we have to have some incredibly strange and contrived way in plot canon to explain changes. While I actually don't mind the 4E realms as much, the best edition of the realms was by far the pre-Time of Troubles. It had some interesting gods, it was a nicely developed (but not overly so) world and wasn't filled with billionth level good aligned NPCs armed to the teeth (and directly backed by the goddess of magic).
I actually like that they are making LFR non-canon, because having such things being canon is silly anyway and the setting should stand as it is. You can mess things around when a new edition comes a bit, like Eberron but ultimately it should still recognizably be the same setting. I never really appreciated that so much initially until I really got into Eberron with 4E. I have numerous 3E Eberron books, all of them are great for fluff and I've made great use of them in my 4E games. I cannot think of a single 3E supplement that would be as useful and relevant for my 4E FR games.
At the same time, I don't have any particular issue with the 4E setting on a whole. It made a lot of changes I ultimately liked a lot and so I happily lived with it. But if I had a choice a Dark Sun reboot down to the pre-Time of Troubles rubbish would be ideal. Especially because we wouldn't need any daft and half-assed explanations as to why certain things change between editions again. Nothing is quite as dumb as when Bhaal died and every assassin on Faerun died with him. I mean there's stupid and then there is that.
have numerous 3E Eberron books, all of them are great for fluff and I've made great use of them in my 4E games. I cannot think of a single 3E supplement that would be as useful and relevant for my 4E FR games.
Thx to the stupidity they call the 4e realms. Almost all 2e supplements were fine for use with 3e
Nothing is quite as dumb as when Bhaal died and every assassin on Faerun died with him. I mean there's stupid and then there is that.
The assassins didn't die with Bhaal. They were slain by Bane's and Myrkul's epic spell before Bhaal died some time later.
It's immensely stupid and contrived either way, just the same as Helm and Tyr having a stupid off like some terrible high school drama show featuring gods. Actually now I think of it from the Time of Troubles the gods have all picked up terminal stupidity as a general personality trait. Another reason why I pick it as the general source of my chagrin with the gods and high level characters in the realms. They just all act so immensely stupid.
My god. What is it with people and the hate direct toward high level NPCs. ...
It's not about hating high-level NPCs necessarily. It's that these specific high level NPCs are the stars of the show in the canon universe. It's about having meta-game knowledge about them - really knowing them - on a level that you shouldn't.
In Greyhawk, do we really know what Mordenkainen's life was like? Not really. He can be the NPC patron in exactly the way you mention. We don't know what his responsibilities are, and we probably shouldn't ask. And because the big M isn't predictable (his enforced neutrality, all that stuff), he could have a myriad of reasons for not getting involved in anything.
But in Faerun, let's be honest... we know everything there is to know about Elminster, quite literally down to his magical underpants. Meta-game knowledge cannot be taken away, ever, even though one might say, "well, just try to act like your PC would, knowing what he would know." It's a nice idea, but it's like trying not to think of watermelons when someone asks you not to think of watermelons.
If there's a significant threat in Shadowdale, everyone knows that it's in Elminster's nature to step up and deal with it. You, me, everyone who has ever read about Elminster. Then to have him absent or doing other things while you're fighting a dragonlich in Shadowdale... well, because we have this meta-game knowledge... it feels like a cheat. It's like we are "backup" and the real epic action must be elsewhere because Elminster isn't here. Truthfully, your PC is a 2-bit backup player.
If the DM has Elminster dodder out and watch while we take on the dragon, perhaps because he is only a lvl. 5 sage in these Realms, then it goes against his canon character. "This isn't the -real- Realms!" or what have you. And you might feel like the world is a second-rate alternate compared to the canon universe.
On the other hand, if the DM trots Elminster out and has him vaporize the dracolich... that's DMPC-ing and it's also a cheat.
Why doesn't this affect other NPCs in the universe, and only us? Why doesn't Drizzt get saved by Elminster, or feel like he's a 2-bit player in this universe of heroes? Because Drizzt hasn't read the Elminster books. Drizzt can't have meta-knowledge about Elminster, the Chosen, or even Cadderly (written by the same author). He's in the world, doing what he can, making choices based on what he knows. We, on the other hand, not only make choices based on our meta-knowledge but we can have conscious and subconscious feelings about that meta-knowledge. Is my mage PC, the wonderful Imizael, ever likely to star in a canon novel? Nope... and that means I know on some level that the real heroes are not me and my band but Drizzt, Elminster, Cadderly, etc.
And if that doesn't bother you, that's great! If you can suppress meta-knowledge, you're a unique and wonderful player. But you're still never the star. Never.
Does this help explain?
It's also the metaplot aspect as well, which I must comment seems to have been vastly toned down with the 4E novels probably quite consciously.
That's an absolutely perfect explanation really.
It's also the metaplot aspect as well, which I must comment seems to have been vastly toned down with the 4E novels probably quite consciously.
Thanks! If they could keep metaplot down to minimal, that'd be a great thing. But I'm not sure it can be avoided forever, especially if they want to sell trilogies and keep novels canon.
@ Jorunhast.
PCs who are facing Illithind for the first time, aren't supposed to know it has a mind blast, etc. But experience players do. So should a DM with experience players never use Illithids? I am not sure how meta-knowledge interferes with the enjoyment the FR give me. I do not think I am the only one. Azoun was such a role model for so many players. I made for good roleplay and I wouldn't blame players for having that meta-knowledge.
Now if saving Shadowdale from a Dracolich makes you feel like a 2-bit replacement. To bad for you. I would feel like a hero. Especially if I did what Elminster wasn't there to do.
Elmisnter comes and saves the day? Who does that? It is just lame.
It may not affect your love and appreciation of the game. Meta-knowledge affects everyone, but you can't predict how much because it affects people differently.
But no matter what, the Realms are the playground of the authors, and their characters are the stars of the show. The more epic the story, the more obvious that becomes. Yet as a campaign setting, they should be your playground and your players should be the star of the show. That's the core argument.
As a personal example, your own metagame knowledge of the spellplague, how various gods and other NPCs "should have acted" is in fact preventing you from enjoying 4E Realms. Isn't it? You know certain things about the hows and whys of the metaplot (e.g. Cyric murdering Mystra, the Helm-Torm-Tymora love triangle, how Asmodeus really became a god), and those things are standing in your way of fully enjoying the "new" Cormyr, aren't they?
Even if those things don't bother you, they do bother me enough that I don't play 4E Realms.
Aegeri has said that he hates the whole "killing off all the assassins" near the end of the Time of Troubles. It doesn't bother you so much. But just like the 4E love triangle, the 2E removal of assassins is metagame knowledge.
Metaplot, and metagame knowledge are insidious. They're the biggest enemies of the DM because you're never quite sure how they might affect your players - and ultimately the whole game.
And I'd be willing to bet that if your players know tactics against illithids, you've probably changed things up a little bit such that it's not a standard illithid... or it has some defensive magic to offset its weaknesses. That's also metagame knowledge.
Once you know something, it will affect you. ;)
Actually they needed the souls of the assassins to make Bane more powerful and fight Torm. It makes alot of sense. They were, after all, allies back in the day.
It's still stupid.
Assassin is a job description and a mechanic like a "class" isn't actually something that should be some metaplot device. There are non-classed assassins who are just as likely to be assassins as individuals who take a class with "assassin" in the name. That such a ridiculously dumb contrivance was used specifically to explain the lack of a *class* is my problem with it - like people in Faerun are on some meta level conscious of the fact they exist in a gameworld with a meta concept like classes. Assassins in general maybe and if it was perhaps their worshippers specifically, but it was used as an explanation for why an entire *class* didn't exist anymore. That's what makes it go from sensible to plain stupid metaplot device.
Edit: The god love triangle stuff is equally as stupid.
I hate a lot of things about gods in the Realms indeed. I actually would just love it if we knew almost nothing about them, because invariably they just act in such incredibly bizarre or incomprehensible logically ways. For example Bane being summoned by Szass Tam and allowing Szass Tam to make various demands of him for whatever reason. I know some people did try to come up with some explanations, but the whole thing felt really forced and not very coherent.
But to each their own I guess.
...I actually would just love it if we knew almost nothing about the (deities)....
I liked it best back in 1E, when the gods were distant and you didn't really know if the Earthmother of the Moonshaes was the same as Chauntea, or if they were two different goddesses. When a sliver of moonlight might have been Selune pointing the way towards something... or not. When a brief glimpse of a silvery unicorn might have been Mielikki... or just a trick of the eye.
That was so much better than the ham-fisted deities of 3.5E, who might literally show up as an avatar to steal the stage... or worse, be the main protagonist of a new novel.
Personally, I like the high-level NPCs, as they provide a contrast for what one person can achieve individually, versus what a group of people can achieve together. My own view is that these powerful individuals are largely either retired or otherwise engaged, otherwise they'd have their own bands to pal around with, which is definitely the way I present them in-game. They're past it, to put it bluntly, and its time for them to start passing on advice and encouragement to the next generation. But I've always held that view, so meta-knowledge hasn't been as much of an issue. Avoiding the novels is another good way to avoid the claptrap that comes with them.
Definitely I like using high-level NPCs as well, and I do think it's fine to have them peppered lightly through a setting. But I also agree with those who thought things were a wee bit over the top by 3.5E, when everyone's cousin is an 18th lvl mage or an epic-lvl fighter, and there are many, many high level characters in every tiny village along the journey.
I think you're nostalgic. What you call metagame knowledde ruining the Realms (or any game) is a desir to feel a child like awe again.
Well... sure I'm nostalgic. Who isn't, really? And who doesn't want to feel that level of awe and excitement? But I don't think the presence or absence of nostalgia invalidates anything I've said.
Back when Paizo was publishing Dragon and Dungeon, and they ran the Age of Worms adventure series, that was some serious Greyhawk nostalgia and child-like awe for me. IMO they did everything right, particularly with the introductory adventure, and people loved that like candy. There's nothing wrong in wanting something nostalgic like that to happen for the Realms, as it would be popular and would sell like hotcakes.
But getting to your other point, metagame knowledge itself isn't a feeling. It's a mixture of factual knowledge, experience, and personal understanding that in turn generate feelings or preclude us from having other feelings. The less of that, in any edition, the better IMO.
So how did Paizo avoid the pitfall of metagame knowledge in the Age of Worms series. Or how did you avoid it?
It wasn't a major issue. I was reflecting on how nostalgic it felt.
To be frank, I still do not understand how knowing that a mage named Elminster lives in Shadowdale and that he is uber powerful can ruin a game.
It doesn't have to personally apply to you in order for it to be true for others.
But I think you're missing the fact that Elminster isn't like a Mordenkainen or a Raistlin. The type of metagame knowledge we have about him is different. We know a vast amount about Elminster's character, his motivations, his powers, and what he is likely to do in many situations. With Mordenkainen, we have very little of that. If something attacks Shadowdale, Elminster would not simply sit there and do nothing, it would be totally out of character for him to do so. Elminster is a hero, and he's been a hero for millenia. Mordenkainen might care more about his research, eat breakfast, or wander off in the same situation. As PCs, Elminster is an ally, a defender of the Dales and humanity in general. If he declares that he has other things to do than battle a dracolich hovering over Shadowdale, that's so out of character that it makes no sense.
If he declares that he has other things to do than battle a dracolich hovering over Shadowdale, that's so out of character that it makes no sense.
Oh, I don't know. Just as suggestions of course but what if he is off making sure that there will continue to be a Toril that there could be a Shadowdale in? That seems like a good reason to leave the smaller stuff (a dracolich rather than the end of the world) to a party that he may well have some faith in...
I liked it best back in 1E, when the gods were distant and you didn't really know if the Earthmother of the Moonshaes was the same as Chauntea, or if they were two different goddesses. When a sliver of moonlight might have been Selune pointing the way towards something... or not. When a brief glimpse of a silvery unicorn might have been Mielikki... or just a trick of the eye.
What made me practically "froth at the mouth" was how often Ao was coming around and being mentioned. Not only were the normal gods supposed to be mysterious, but knowledge of their creator was supposed to be so few that maybe Larloch had heard of legends about it.
Oh, I don't know. Just as suggestions of course but what if he is off making sure that there will continue to be a Toril that there could be a Shadowdale in? That seems like a good reason to leave the smaller stuff (a dracolich rather than the end of the world) to a party that he may well have some faith in...
Which would mean that the bigger, more epic adventure is being played out by Elminster and his team, and the dracolich in Shadowdale is something he leaves for the minor "help" (i.e. your players). Knowing about Elminster in detail sets up a possible catch-22 for players and DMs. You're damned if you include him, you're damned if you don't.
And again, this doesn't have to be true for everybody... but it's true enough for many people that it was an issue for the designers to deal with.
What made me practically "froth at the mouth" was how often Ao was coming around and being mentioned. Not only were the normal gods supposed to be mysterious, but knowledge of their creator was supposed to be so few that maybe Larloch had heard of legends about it.
Ao was definitely considered one of the giant mistakes of 2E, that's true.
Which would mean that the bigger, more epic adventure is being played out by Elminster and his team, and the dracolich in Shadowdale is something he leaves for the minor "help" (i.e. your players).
I've often been on the side of DMs who feel that Elminster and Co. are too powerfull, and argued as much on these forums for quite some time.
However, my view has always been that this is a DM perspective (and a legitimate one at that), but not a "fact" of the Realms.
Elminster hasn't always saved Shadowdale, even when he was in his prime. To borrow that Dracolich: it's a thing of imense magical power (and magical knowledge). Players with a deep metagame knowledge would know out of game that Elminster, Storm, The Simbul, etc...would be loath to destroy such a creature, because of its nature and ability.
(This is why Manshoon survived for so long, btw...)
Players with a deep understanding of the Realms would actually comprehend that Elminster and Co. have reasons not to slay such creatures (literally because Mystra would have ordered them not to, short of saving themselves). It's not automatically true that the Chosen are off "doing something bigger"
So, I agree a player with regular metagame knowledge might conclude (from reading the novels and most of the sourcebooks) that Elminster and the Chosen are busy with a bigger problem, but a player with complete metagame knowledge (read: spoken to Ed at Candlekeep on his scroll) knows better.
...this doesn't have to be true for everybody... but it's true enough for many people that it was an issue for the designers to deal with.
Well said. Also, please don't take my statement above as a "you're wrong" statement. I only wish to point out there are varying levels of fan metaknowledge and responses to same. Speaking of which...
Ao was definitely considered one of the giant mistakes of 2E, that's true.
Really? By who? I've been gaming in the Realms since the OGB was put on the shelves. Since then, I remember the ToT being a disaster, but certainly not Ao, as regarded by the designers, editors, authors and most fans.
Furthermore, we now know that Elminster and others of Mystra's chosen were charged with making magical items and putting them in places so adventurers would discover them. That's just stupid, because even if it is happening that way it's just plain dumb for us to ever know it on a "meta" level. It destroys the whole feeling that you've accomplished an Indiana Jones and have come out of that ruined tomb with a real and genuine bit of old magic, lore, or knowledge.
I've never, since we first learned of this activity by the Chosen, read or heard a single player, author or designer complain about this.
Until now.
When I first learned about it, I thought it was pretty damn cool (as did others [Note: I'm very loathe to generalize about other people's feelings in online posts, so please take the weight of my statement in this post at its full value]).
I'm my very considerable experience, players who seek out knowledge of the Realms to the point where they learn the hidden activities of the likes of Elminster and the Chosen (such as seeding magic items, and not just for players/adventurers, mind, but for magic-able NPCs so they might learn The Art as well) always appreciate these facts. They don't see them as inhibitors to play or the suspension of disbelief.
That Elminster and the Chosen seeded magic items was not a reason cited for rebooting the setting to 4E, nor was it a complaint off-heard on this or any other forum.
However, my view has always been that this is a DM perspective (and a legitimate one at that), but not a "fact" of the Realms.
As I said in my first post on this subject, what "ruins the Realms" or makes it better is really more a matter of feeling and opinion.
Elminster hasn't always saved Shadowdale, even when he was in his prime. To borrow that Dracolich: it's a thing of imense magical power (and magical knowledge). Players with a deep metagame knowledge would know out of game that Elminster, Storm, The Simbul, etc...would be loath to destroy such a creature, because of its nature and ability.
(This is why Manshoon survived for so long, btw...)
Well, dracolich probably wasn't the best random example I could've come up with, because it's probably making you think of a relatively innocuous dracolich like Daurgothoth. And yes, Elminster wouldn't try to kill that one because Dargo is doing some interesting magcial research. Nor is Daurgo likely to attack a village or town, he's more likely to employ people in interesting occupations. But that said, my example isn't so much about a dracolich but whether or not it would be in character for Elminster to stand and do nothing when some monster is murdering humans for no apparent reason. At the very least, El would try to stop him long enough to have a dull conversation.
And about Manshoon... well, maybe Manshoon has survived because he's clever and resourceful, considering that El and his allies have fought Manshoon openly in the past. ;)
Players with a deep understanding of the Realms would actually comprehend that Elminster and Co. have reasons not to slay such creatures (literally because Mystra would have ordered them not to, short of saving themselves). It's not automatically true that the Chosen are off "doing something bigger"
You're focused on my choice of monster, rather than the situation: extremely powerful monster bent on killing villagers for no apparent reason, and whether El would or wouldn't stand there.
So, I agree a player with regular metagame knowledge might conclude (from reading the novels and most of the sourcebooks) that Elminster and the Chosen are busy with a bigger problem, but a player with complete metagame knowledge (read: spoken to Ed at Candlekeep on his scroll) knows better.
"Knowing better" is highly influenced by personal opinion, whether one has had Ed answer one of their questions at Candlekeep or not. It's also situational: Elminster would hesitate to attack Daurgothoth, certainly, but the hypothetical was whether or not El would respond to the threat or not. El would certainly want to know why Daurgo has gone ballistic on his town, and he'd very likely get involved even if it takes the form of negotiating rather than attacking.
That said, Daurgothoth is a special case, and Elminster has been involved indirectly in the destruction of other "highly magical beings" like Rauglothgor (another dracolich). But that's another argument for another time.
Really? By who? I've been gaming in the Realms since the OGB was put on the shelves. Since then, I remember the ToT being a disaster, but certainly not Ao, as regarded by the designers, editors, authors and most fans.
I recall several conversations on this board where people have lamented Ao's existence, how it's better to completely ignore him. It's not something I came up with out of the blue.
I've never, since we first learned of this activity by the Chosen, read or heard a single player, author or designer complain about this.
Until now.
When I first learned about it, I thought it was pretty damn cool (as did others [Note: I'm very loathe to generalize about other people's feelings in online posts, so please take the weight of my statement in this post at its full value]).
Perhaps I'm just the first person you've seen to complain about this. Ever since I learned of this, I thought it was incredibly dumb (for the reasons I mentioned). But as with all things, everyone has an opinion and YMMV.
I'm my very considerable experience, players who seek out knowledge of the Realms to the point where they learn the hidden activities of the likes of Elminster and the Chosen (such as seeding magic items, and not just for players/adventurers, mind, but for magic-able NPCs so they might learn The Art as well) always appreciate these facts. They don't see them as inhibitors to play or the suspension of disbelief.
Well, my take on this is that - although I love Elminster - it's yet one more thing that he has his nose into. Do we really need to have Elminster doing everything, even down to planting magic items to be found? I don't think I'm unique in my opinion that Elminster really needs to be used less.
That Elminster and the Chosen seeded magic items was not a reason cited for rebooting the setting to 4E, nor was it a complaint off-heard on this or any other forum.
I didn't say that it was specifically a reason cited for rebooting the setting, I just said it was yet another dumb thing among many. And again, as with all opinions, YMMV.
By the by, I loved the item and spell seeding in dungeons thing, though I do agree that Ao was a disastrously stupid idea in a lot of respects.
To borrow that Dracolich: it's a thing of imense magical power (and magical knowledge). Players with a deep metagame knowledge would know out of game that Elminster, Storm, The Simbul, etc...would be loath to destroy such a creature, because of its nature and ability.
(This is why Manshoon survived for so long, btw...)
Players with a deep understanding of the Realms would actually comprehend that Elminster and Co. have reasons not to slay such creatures (literally because Mystra would have ordered them not to, short of saving themselves).
Actually in spellfire Elminster trivially destroys a dracolich with a fireball in the novel without much of a thought.
Of course that novel is absolutely awful, but I definitely remember that.
Edit: Yes indeed. He kills a dracolich (implied to be a fairly well established and powerful one) with just a single fireball.
The main thing im learning here, is not oh hey theyre right 4e DOES SUCK!! but rather we all have very different opinions about the Realms, regardless of edition.
But that said, my example isn't so much about a dracolich but whether or not it would be in character for Elminster to stand and do nothing when some monster is murdering humans for no apparent reason. At the very least, El would try to stop him long enough to have a dull conversation.
Which monster, where? The point of my asking the question is that El, for all of his power, is still one man and as such can only occupy one position in space-time (broadly) at a time. This means that as long as we don't assume that the threat to the Realms at this moment is the only one of any significance to the Realms occurring then we automatically arrive at the situation where El (and others like him) will be around for some disasters (probably the major, national or planetary ones)... and not for others (like the bugbear stomping around the logging camp or whatever).
And to quote from myown sig (unforgivable I know):
"I always saw the High Level NPCs as shepherds of the Realms not its defenders. Making sure that not too many sheep were lost as they milled around (as they are wont to do) and bringing on the young'uns into the job. In that way a shepherd never has time to go and hunt down all of the wolves but is pretty dashed effective at keeping them away from the sheep when they rear their heads."
But that said, my example isn't so much about a dracolich but whether or not it would be in character for Elminster to stand and do nothing when some monster is murdering humans for no apparent reason. At the very least, El would try to stop him long enough to have a dull conversation.
Which monster, where? The point of my asking the question is that El, for all of his power, is still one man and as such can only occupy one position in space-time (broadly) at a time. This means that as long as we don't assume that the threat to the Realms at this moment is the only one of any significance to the Realms occurring then we automatically arrive at the situation where El (and others like him) will be around for some disasters (probably the major, national or planetary ones)... and not for others (like the bugbear stomping around the logging camp or whatever).
And to quote from myown sig (unforgivable I know):
"I always saw the High Level NPCs as shepherds of the Realms not its defenders. Making sure that not too many sheep were lost as they milled around (as they are wont to do) and bringing on the young'uns into the job. In that way a shepherd never has time to go and hunt down all of the wolves but is pretty dashed effective at keeping them away from the sheep when they rear their heads."
And the problem with this argument, that 'Elminster is only one man', is that it doesn't have to be Elminster doing the job. There are an awful lot of other high level NPCs around who aren't likely to sit by idly while their own neighbourhood is destroyed (unless they're the ones doing the destroying). I could probably name nearly all the wizards from Greyhawk capable of casting Wish or other 9th level spells - less than twenty in total. I defy anyone to name all the FR wizards of the same power level, or to say where they all live, without looking it up.
I honestly don't know the answer to your question, so I had a quick look through the FRCS to look specifically for casters capable of casting Wish, which as a 9th level spell requires either Wiz17 or Sor18 or an equivalent, which is not exactly a common level of power. I found 9, including El and one dragon.
On the Evil side of the coin : Klauth, Halaster, Szass, Sememmon & Manshoon
For Good : Alassra, Khelben, Alustriel, Sylune, Laeral & El
I would imagine that people like Taern Hornblade (Silverymoon), Zalathorm (Halruaa, before he died in Elaine's excellent Counsellors & Kings trilogy), Vangerdahast (Cormyr) and possibly Laspeera (Cormyr), Tessaril (Cormyr) would have to be added too. I don't know.
Do you have the final figure? I would be interested for interest's sake, and as a corroboration of your rather general statement.
Did you actually read the thread, T_S, or are you just jumping in with your usual 'but the 4E Realmz r great!' thing again? 
You clearly missed the huge lists of points and summaries and essays about exactly what 4E screwed up that most of the forum agreed with.
Don't forget Divine spellcasters, Iluvrien, Miracle's right up there with Wish for 'Wait, you do what?' potential.
Well I did say "El (and others like him)".
I honestly don't know the answer to your question, so I had a quick look through the FRCS to look specifically for casters capable of casting Wish, which as a 9th level spell requires either Wiz17 or Sor18 or an equivalent, which is not exactly a common level of power. I found 9, including El and one dragon.
On the Evil side of the coin : Klauth, Halaster, Szass, Sememmon & Manshoon
For Good : Alassra, Khelben, Alustriel, Sylune, Laeral & El
I would imagine that people like Taern Hornblade (Silverymoon), Zalathorm (Halruaa, before he died in Elaine's excellent Counsellors & Kings trilogy), Vangerdahast (Cormyr) and possibly Laspeera (Cormyr), Tessaril (Cormyr) would have to be added too. I don't know.
Do you have the final figure? I would be interested for interest's sake, and as a corroboration of your rather general statement.
A few years ago someone over on Candlekeep (Kuje? I'll have to look it up) put together a huge spreadsheet of named/levelled NPCs from the 1e/2e Realms and started the same for the 3e Realms. It included their levels, alignment, race, sourcebook they were from, and a few other things. I have a copy of it on my HDD at home. At one point I had an idea for a short adventure with a Wish spell going wrong due to being badly worded, so I checked it for NPC wizards of high enough level to cast the spell. Once I'd eliminated duplicate entries there were over 100 NPC Wizards capable of casting Wish in the Realms - probably closer to 200. Note that this was from all the 1e/2e sources, not just the boxed sets. I have to admire the huge amount of work put into doing this. Parts of the project can be found on Candlekeep, here:
www.candlekeep.com/library/articles/npcs...
Unfortunately this doesn't include the Magic-Users.
Actually in spellfire Elminster trivially destroys a dracolich with a fireball in the novel without much of a thought.
Aye. And he's slain lichnee (sp?), malaugrym (sp?), powerful mages (singly or in groups), magical monsters of several types, whole legions of non-magical foes, etc...
But a wise player would still not cast doubt over Elminster's lack of appearance were Shadowdale in peril. :p
For me, it's always been an issue of framing the problem. If you see El as a savior type (as the novels tend to depict him and the Chosen), you'll feel one way. If you dig deep in the sourcebooks and mine Candlekeep.com for Ed's responses over the last several years, you'll feel another.
Forgot to mention how much I enjoyed reading Jorunhanst's summary a few pages back too.
Apologies for poor spelling this morning. I need coffee...
Don't forget Divine spellcasters, Iluvrien, Miracle's right up there with Wish for 'Wait, you do what?' potential.
True enough, so that includes NPCs with Clr17 or equivalent. That would seem to include Fzoul from the FRCS, and I am sure a few others from other works. I also forgot to include whatever Arcane casters dwell on Evermeet (apart from Amlaruil herself, obviously she makes the grade). The Srinshee should probably be in there as well, although heaven only knows where she is these days. And of course, I probably shouldn't forget Noumea Drathchuld either ;).
I am struggling a bit to find more...
...which is kind of the point, isn't it? I have been a fan (in one way or another) of the Realms since I picked up Elfshadow in 2000... meaning that I have been a fan of the setting on and off for about 10 years now. How many players are going to go to greater lengths than I have, to learn about the setting, to find people who might put them out of an adventuring job?
For me, it's always been an issue of framing the problem. If you see El as a savior type (as the novels tend to depict him and the Chosen), you'll feel one way. If you dig deep in the sourcebooks and mine Candlekeep.com for Ed's responses over the last several years, you'll feel another.
This. Can't say many of the novels I've read, and I freely admit there aren't many of those, have shown him in that light as far as I could tell. Usually, I felt sorry for the ol' codger more than I felt he was some kind of Superman.
Oh, and just for Silverboy, I'm pretty sure we all know the 4e Realms Suck, deep down inside, just that some of us are too proud to admit it.
Seriously though, every edition is going to have its problems, same as its going to have its strongpoints. While a lot of the events of the ToT were stupid beyond belief, the changes themselves I didn't mind too much (except for Cyric, that one was just beyond the pale), 2e remains my favorite edition. 3e's system remains my favorite, but the Realms became a little... impersonal I think is a good word, with the omniscient 3rd person it used so much, but it remained close enough to be tolerable, even if I ignored large parts of it. 4e, well, it just went beyond my tolerance of minimalism and introduced a lot of elements I don't personally find appealing. Maybe when I was in my twenties I might have found it more appealing, but as it stands, its a little too dark and desperate for my tastes these days. Its still the Realms, sure, but its not the Realms as I envision them, so its less than useless to me. Of course a lot of other people feel differently, but that doesn't affect me in the slightest, as I'm sure my opinions and tastes don't affect them either, nor should they.
Certainly I was one of the ones who railed against them, and I still do on occassion, but when it comes down to it, the most I can do is vote my dollar and just not purchase the 4e stuff (which I found disappointing, expecting it was going to be SW Saga on speed), but I like the Pathfinder rules quite a bit (even if the setting itself wasn't to my tastes in the slightest), so I'm happy any way it goes. Who knows though, maybe someday I'll pick up the 4e Realms books if my sense of completism kicks in and find some useful stuff in there... doubtful, but never say never and all that.
Actually in spellfire Elminster trivially destroys a dracolich with a fireball in the novel without much of a thought.
Aye. And he's slain lichnee (sp?), malaugrym (sp?), powerful mages (singly or in groups), magical monsters of several types, whole legions of non-magical foes, etc...
But a wise player would still not cast doubt over Elminster's lack of appearance were Shadowdale in peril. :p
For me, it's always been an issue of framing the problem. If you see El as a savior type (as the novels tend to depict him and the Chosen), you'll feel one way. If you dig deep in the sourcebooks and mine Candlekeep.com for Ed's responses over the last several years, you'll feel another.
Forgot to mention how much I enjoyed reading Jorunhanst's summary a few pages back too.
Apologies for poor spelling this morning. I need coffee...
We don't even have to mine that deeply into the souce books to find out about how really Elminster would respond. Just read his character description in any soucebook. That has always been my problem with the novels they are often sooo contray to what is written in the souce books it is pretty much a different world. Sure they might be enjoyable to read, but they really don't represent the Realms that well.
Did you actually read the thread, T_S, or are you just jumping in with your usual 'but the 4E Realmz r great!' thing again?
If I didnt read the thread then I wouldnt of posted what I did. I could post quotes, but lots of people were talking about problems with previous editions, mostly the Uber powerful npcs, so that would be a whole mess of quotes.
Did you even read my post? IM wondering how you get "4e is Great" from my comments posted in this thread?
I should also mention... in my two-post summary, I was just summarizing all the things I've heard on this board since I've been here. I don't personally believe that all of the changes made were bad, and I actually like the 4E core ruleset even though I don't use the 4E Realms. My group, where I'm a player, is midway through on a d20 Conan campaign, which we haven't had time to finish.
Definitely I was a huge fan of 1E and the early part of 2E, although I never played 2E rules or 3.0-3.5 rules personally. I'm one of those that drifted off into non-gaming for quite a while, although I "kept up" with novels and the occasional sourcebook purchase. So in a lot of ways I'm probably a lot closer to the original poster than those who've played through all the editions. When I came back to gaming a several months ago, our attempt to put together a 4E Realms campaign just didn't work out, and a big part of it was the attitude my friends had toward the new Realms. When I got my hands on a copy of the 4E FRCS, a lot of things just were alien... too different.
But there are lots of people who love it, and that's cool too.
In some ways, love of the Realms is a lot like a scar: ugly and permanent. Everyone has their (ugly) opinion on what shouldn't be included, or what's wrong with it on some level. But we all love it, we all keep coming back in small ways even if we're not presently using edition "x" at some point. The love of it, which is indeed based in nostalgia, is all about how we feel and not because of some specific design element.
Maybe we need a "what you love(d)" thread to help us remind ourselves why we keep that scar.
True, but he could be fighting another Dracolich that just ambushed him over Waterdeep. And some Dragon cultist cast an anti-teleport zone, so El is stuck fighting the Waterdeep Dracolich. So it is up tothe PCs to fight the Shadowdale Dracolich.
Player:-Why is Elminster not here fighting this guy.
DM-Very good question. But wouldthe Cult of the DRagon be stupid to send a Dracolich fight Elminster on his on turf, unless they knew he was busy somewhere? And do you think that the Cult would just send a dracolich to ravage the place? There is probably something here that they want and you will have to find out what. El isn't here and your are the best hope for this place. Can you do what do what the Old Mage can't do?
Ok, so the dragon looks in your direction and open his maw. A huge flow of fire...
You're over-thinking the hypothetical situation.
Elminster is standing right there. Powerful monster attacks Shadowdale and starts killing innocent bystanders. It doesn't have to be a dracolich, Elminster isn't somewhere else to begin with, Mystra doesn't have him working on a more important assignment, the other Chosen aren't also standing there. It's just a simple hypothetical to ask the main question: would Elminster respond in such a situation, or would he stand there not caring?
Jeez, too much time has been put into twisting or trying to qualify my hypothetical by adding in other variables or special exceptions, and no one tried to see the point I was trying to make.
So I'll let this one go, you're all right and I'm wrong: Elminster would apparently just stand there doing nothing while innocents were being killed by a ravaging monster. There. You all win, I'm wrong.
But you are the DM. Why would you put your players in Shadowdale, with Elminster there and a monster attacking in the first place?
You complain about a situation that you have created.
Whatever your argument is, you're right, I'm wrong. You win. Elminster would do nothing, he'd stand there and let everyone in Shadowdale get roasted alive.
I don't see an issue with having him around and still letting the PCs have the spotlight, just have him say something semi-cryptic about where the source of the evil they just fought possibly lies and have him point them in the right direction to take care of it, while he's passing some time at the Old Skull, quaffing a few brews and smoking a few bowls of pipeweed. He is retired after all, and they are the ones with the horses...
Player 1: Wow, this might be the tome we need to destroy the legendary evil dracolich, Teneb.
Player 2: I thought it was Tenebriandros or something "Realmsy".
DM: Well, you'll probably need to have a sage look at it and help derive its' secrets, whatever its' purpose.
Player 1: Yeah. Hey, we're pretty close to Shadowdale, and Elminster is a sage. Let's go there!
The party packs up and rides to Shadowdale.
DM: You knock on the tower door, but there's no answer. Elminster isn't home.
Player 1: Dangit, we lost several days' travel!
Player 2: Why isn't Elminster ever home when we travel through here? You think that statistically we'd luck out at least once. It is his home after all.
DM: Couldn't tell ya. Oh, and Storm's not home either. Or any of the retired adventurers who live here. Their homes are all shuttered and locked.
Player 1: What a surprise. Okay, let's see... how about Khelben and Laeral in Waterdeep? They have a lot of magical knowledge, and they'd be interested in an ancient magical tome.
The long ride to Waterdeep ensues.
Player 2: Whew, okay, here we are at Blackstaff tower. KNOCK KNOCK!!
DM: There's no answer. They're not home.
Player 2: You have got to be kidding.
Player 1: No apprentices, nothing?
DM: Look guys, you can't be running to these high level NPCs whenever you want. They're busy, and their apprentices are off gathering spell components or something.
Player 2: So who should we go see, then? One of the other wizards here in Waterdeep, like one of the mages of the Wands family?
DM: They're on vacation.
Player 2: Malchor Harpell in Longsaddle?
DM: He's on one of the outer planes.
Player 2: *sigh* Uhm... Savengriff?
DM: on a mission for the Harpers.
Player 2: I'm getting the picture... how about Tessalar Hulicorn?
DM: that would've been a good choice... but suddenly you look up at the sky, and the sun starts to eclipse. It must be the Shadow Dracolich Teneb, he obtained the Sun Eater while you were riding around looking for help on the tome. Sorry, but that's it, the world ends.
Player 1: Well, who were we supposed to see, then?
DM: Remember that wiry old man in Secomber, the smelly one that owned the bookshop? He would've traded you the Light Stone for the magical tome you hold. With it, you could have imprisoned Teneb after weakening his physical form.
Player 1: But these are the Realms! If we can't get a little sage-type help from one of the big-name NPCs, why are we even playing here? Meeting them is a part of the fun.
DM: You did meet Elminster, but he was in disguise. He sold you an apple in Secomber and gave you directions to that old bookseller's shop. He winked at you, and had a pipe that looked just like Elminster's. Listen, I know what I'm doing, it's better this way.
Player 2: The fat Sembian merchant who pinched my butt was Elminster? You suck.
In my Realms game Elminster, if he was home, would likely tease the characters about their impending death, while dropping hints as to how to survive a battle with Teneb.
“Are ye sure ye are up to the task? Teneb is cruel, even by the standards of his kind, and will likely make undead slaves of your corpses. He’ll know ye are coming and will most certainly slay ye with spell traps at the entrance to his abode. Oh, and have ye found the right abode? He has two lairs, mind, the false one holding six enslaved, hungry dragons that will eat ye on the spot.”
Were I in a particular mood, I’d have Storm come along too. “Why have you let them in, you old goat!?! By the Goddess herself you know Teneb can sense when the Holy Tome is about in the Realms. He’ll be on Shadowdale in half a day and you and I both know we’ll be hard pressed to drive him off! I’ll not lose another Sister to marauding dragons and half of Shadowdale with it. Get them gone! Now!”
“Be calm. Lass. Aye, Teneb is on his way, along with the six other worms he’s enspelled and mind controlled to spread out and find the tome. If ye adventurers are wise, ye’ll heed my words as to the location of his true abode. Take this portal key and mind the instructions I’m to give ye, for if ye can make your way past his traps and tricks, ye might yet find his inner lair and there spring a trap with the tome!”
That’s railroading. And in my (and my players) experience, it’s fun as all hell.
My god. What is it with people and the hate direct toward high level NPCs. ...
It's not about hating high-level NPCs necessarily. It's that these specific high level NPCs are the stars of the show in the canon universe. It's about having meta-game knowledge about them - really knowing them - on a level that you shouldn't.
In Greyhawk, do we really know what Mordenkainen's life was like? Not really. He can be the NPC patron in exactly the way you mention. We don't know what his responsibilities are, and we probably shouldn't ask. And because the big M isn't predictable (his enforced neutrality, all that stuff), he could have a myriad of reasons for not getting involved in anything.
But in Faerun, let's be honest... we know everything there is to know about Elminster, quite literally down to his magical underpants. Meta-game knowledge cannot be taken away, ever, even though one might say, "well, just try to act like your PC would, knowing what he would know." It's a nice idea, but it's like trying not to think of watermelons when someone asks you not to think of watermelons.
If there's a significant threat in Shadowdale, everyone knows that it's in Elminster's nature to step up and deal with it. You, me, everyone who has ever read about Elminster. Then to have him absent or doing other things while you're fighting a dragonlich in Shadowdale... well, because we have this meta-game knowledge... it feels like a cheat. It's like we are "backup" and the real epic action must be elsewhere because Elminster isn't here. Truthfully, your PC is a 2-bit backup player.
If the DM has Elminster dodder out and watch while we take on the dragon, perhaps because he is only a lvl. 5 sage in these Realms, then it goes against his canon character. "This isn't the -real- Realms!" or what have you. And you might feel like the world is a second-rate alternate compared to the canon universe.
On the other hand, if the DM trots Elminster out and has him vaporize the dracolich... that's DMPC-ing and it's also a cheat.
Why doesn't this affect other NPCs in the universe, and only us? Why doesn't Drizzt get saved by Elminster, or feel like he's a 2-bit player in this universe of heroes? Because Drizzt hasn't read the Elminster books. Drizzt can't have meta-knowledge about Elminster, the Chosen, or even Cadderly (written by the same author). He's in the world, doing what he can, making choices based on what he knows. We, on the other hand, not only make choices based on our meta-knowledge but we can have conscious and subconscious feelings about that meta-knowledge. Is my mage PC, the wonderful Imizael, ever likely to star in a canon novel? Nope... and that means I know on some level that the real heroes are not me and my band but Drizzt, Elminster, Cadderly, etc.
And if that doesn't bother you, that's great! If you can suppress meta-knowledge, you're a unique and wonderful player. But you're still never the star. Never.
Does this help explain?
Simple solution is to just not have the characters fight a dracolich in Shadowdale!
As for never being the star, if you believe that your character will never be the star then of course he will never be a star because you have already decided that for your character. Sure, the DM will in part be responsible if he decides to use all of those powerful NPCs in his game, but there is absolutely no reason why the DM has to use all or any of those powerful NPCs in his game in such a way that it could possibly detract from the player's enjoyment of the game. And if you are trying to base the enjoyment of your character on whether or not someone will ever write a book about your character then, and no offense intended, you are approaching the game with the wrong attitude. D&D is not a competition between your character and those written by authors and/or the creators of the game. And if your DM is making your characters "compete" with such famous entities as Drizzt, Elminster, Cadderly and others then he is most definitely playing the game wrong.
And as detailed as the Forgotten Realms are it is really easy to simply ignore much of what is written and not let it affect your game. Or, a DM can just move the game to an area where it is not as detailed as someplace like Shadowdale. My campaign takes place down around the Vilhon Reach area and to the characters Elminster is pretty much an unknown person. Another nice thing about all of the various products that were put out about the Realms is that a DM can really pick and choose what suits his campaign and leave out the rest. In my game the time of troubles never really happened though the effects are still there (specifically wild magic).
But no matter what, the Realms are the playground of the authors, and their characters are the stars of the show. The more epic the story, the more obvious that becomes. Yet as a campaign setting, they should be your playground and your players should be the star of the show. That's the core argument.
The Realms are only the playground of the authors in the books and supplements that they write. They have no authority beyond what the DM gives them.
And in a campaign setting the characters of the authors are your playground and the players are the stars of the show. The only way that that is not the case is if you let it be so. Meta knowledge really does not apply if you do not put players into a situation where they could possibly have to use that meta knowledge. In other words, if your characters know what color magic underwear Elminster wears then do not run a game where Elminster would even be involved or in a situtation where the characters would expect Elminster to show up and save their butts.
===============
PS I am not attacking you Jorunhast!
And the problem with this argument, that 'Elminster is only one man', is that it doesn't have to be Elminster doing the job. There are an awful lot of other high level NPCs around who aren't likely to sit by idly while their own neighbourhood is destroyed (unless they're the ones doing the destroying). I could probably name nearly all the wizards from Greyhawk capable of casting Wish or other 9th level spells - less than twenty in total. I defy anyone to name all the FR wizards of the same power level, or to say where they all live, without looking it up.
They are only a problem if you let them be a problem. In other words, do not use them in your game. It really is a simple solution. The only time that I have ever really run into people who think that the game Forgotten Realms has to be exactly like the novel Forgotten Realms and/or that every supplement has to be used, as written, are when dealing with teenagers and really young adults (i.e. immature players). And they are most definitely in the minority. The vast majority of the players I have come across know that every D&D world is mutable and not exactly as written. And none of the players I have ever personally played with or DMd since I grew up has ever expected any of the powerful NPCs/author's characters to play a role in the game, that they were for the most part only so much fluff. Sure, they knew that hundreds of high powered mages could cast Wish spell, but I have never met a player who ever let that fact detract from their enjoyment of the game in any way, shape or form. Why? Because they know that those NPCs are not really part of the game, they are background noise and nothing more.
Elminster is standing right there. Powerful monster attacks Shadowdale and starts killing innocent bystanders. It doesn't have to be a dracolich, Elminster isn't somewhere else to begin with, Mystra doesn't have him working on a more important assignment, the other Chosen aren't also standing there. It's just a simple hypothetical to ask the main question: would Elminster respond in such a situation, or would he stand there not caring?
Jeez, too much time has been put into twisting or trying to qualify my hypothetical by adding in other variables or special exceptions, and no one tried to see the point I was trying to make.
So I'll let this one go, you're all right and I'm wrong: Elminster would apparently just stand there doing nothing while innocents were being killed by a ravaging monster. There. You all win, I'm wrong.
Just to clarify, I saw the point that you were making. I just think that it is not really all that good of an example, but only because I happen to think that any DM who puts the players in that situation is doing a bad job as DM. And if the players expected the DM to put them in that position (and the DM obliged) then the players got exactly what they deserved. To me such a scenario that you described is almost beyond comprehension for me. In all my years as a player and as DM I have never expected nor wanted my characters to share the limelight with any of the characters from the novels or with any of the big name NPCs. In fact, I have never even wanted to encounter them or really have them mentioned in a possible interactive way (such as defending Shadowdale while Elminster is elsewhere). I might be in the minority, but I have never actually encountered anyone in real life who felt differently than I do on this.
And another thing to consider, El moved to Shadowdale to retire, hed had enough of traveling the planes, battling evil, and saving the Realms more times than you can shake a wandat, So if El could just sit back and take it easy and smoke his pipe while some one else handles things, of course hes goin to do just that.
DM: So you pull an ancient tome from the dusty crypt of Thaeran. It looks to be a quite impressive tome, and it radiates a soft light.
Player 1: Wow, this might be the tome we need to destroy the legendary evil dracolich, Teneb.
Player 2: I thought it was Tenebriandros or something "Realmsy".
DM: Well, you'll probably need to have a sage look at it and help derive its' secrets, whatever its' purpose.
Player 1: Yeah. Hey, we're pretty close to Shadowdale, and Elminster is a sage. Let's go there!
The party packs up and rides to Shadowdale.
DM: You knock on the tower door, but there's no answer. Elminster isn't home.
Player 1: Dangit, we lost several days' travel!
Player 2: Why isn't Elminster ever home when we travel through here? You think that statistically we'd luck out at least once. It is his home after all.
DM: Couldn't tell ya. Oh, and Storm's not home either. Or any of the retired adventurers who live here. Their homes are all shuttered and locked.
Player 1: What a surprise. Okay, let's see... how about Khelben and Laeral in Waterdeep? They have a lot of magical knowledge, and they'd be interested in an ancient magical tome.
The long ride to Waterdeep ensues.
Player 2: Whew, okay, here we are at Blackstaff tower. KNOCK KNOCK!!
DM: There's no answer. They're not home.
Player 2: You have got to be kidding.
Player 1: No apprentices, nothing?
DM: Look guys, you can't be running to these high level NPCs whenever you want. They're busy, and their apprentices are off gathering spell components or something.
Player 2: So who should we go see, then? One of the other wizards here in Waterdeep, like one of the mages of the Wands family?
DM: They're on vacation.
Player 2: Malchor Harpell in Longsaddle?
DM: He's on one of the outer planes.
Player 2: *sigh* Uhm... Savengriff?
DM: on a mission for the Harpers.
Player 2: I'm getting the picture... how about Tessalar Hulicorn?
DM: that would've been a good choice... but suddenly you look up at the sky, and the sun starts to eclipse. It must be the Shadow Dracolich Teneb, he obtained the Sun Eater while you were riding around looking for help on the tome. Sorry, but that's it, the world ends.
Player 1: Well, who were we supposed to see, then?
DM: Remember that wiry old man in Secomber, the smelly one that owned the bookshop? He would've traded you the Light Stone for the magical tome you hold. With it, you could have imprisoned Teneb after weakening his physical form.
Player 1: But these are the Realms! If we can't get a little sage-type help from one of the big-name NPCs, why are we even playing here? Meeting them is a part of the fun.
DM: You did meet Elminster, but he was in disguise. He sold you an apple in Secomber and gave you directions to that old bookseller's shop. He winked at you, and had a pipe that looked just like Elminster's. Listen, I know what I'm doing, it's better this way.
Player 2: The fat Sembian merchant who pinched my butt was Elminster? You suck.
Sounds like the players are running the game instead of the DM! Either that or the DM has done a really bad job of fleshing out his own campaign and having non-famous sages available for the characters to go to and letting the players know that those other sources are available! And if the players only want to go to the famous sages, so what? Does it really matter if the group pays 2,000 gp to W.O.M. of Secomber to translate the book for them or if they pay 2,000 gp to Elminster to translate it? Such an action really has no impact on the game.
And such a DM who would let the players waste all that time travelling to Shadowdale and then Waterdeep just to say "No" and then screw them over like he did is a really, really bad DM. The DM could have easily dropped hints about where to go. Sure, Elminster might not have been home but his butler could have told the characters to go see W.O.M. of Secomber. Or he could have done something similar in Waterdeep. And even then there was no reason to make the dracolich attack right then and there. He could have easily delayed any attack until a later time. Seems to me like a case of really whiney, immature players and a really horrible, immature DM. Hardly a really good example, eh?
So here's the point: in Greyhawk, you don't have to avoid the city where Mordenkainen lives. As a DM, you don't have to avoid Mordenkainen, or Bigby, or Tenser for that matter. They don't have to be away on holidays or epic adventures. Why? Because the level of metagame knowledge is minimal by comparison. When one of them says, "sorry, I have other things I must do and cannot be involved," it doesn't feel like a cheat because they're not divine servants of a good deity. Furthermore, there are so few archmages in the Flanaess compared to Faerun, you probably won't have random archmages showing up to help your party when something big is going down.
Can you run an adventure that has a massive demon invasion of Waterdeep and NOT expect Khelben, Laeral, the Wands family, etc. etc. etc. to all respond? You've all basically said also that I should've just kept the whole thing out of Shadowdale. But as a DM, why should I?
It's bad for a setting when as a DM you "should not" have certain adventures in certain areas.
In Faerun there are limits on what one can do as a DM, not only because of how many high level NPCs are dotted all over the place, but also because all of your players are probably familiar with the big name NPCs and their motivations/tactics. It's not just about Elminster, it's pervasive.
And yeah, you could have Elminster and Storm act like big smarmy d-bags and railroad them away from Shadowdale... but after a while that's just as annoying.
I'm just going to say one last thing, because no one apparently understood the main point.
If it makes you feel better, I understood your point perfectly and I happen to 100% agree with what you have wrote (the theory behind it that is).
I'm just going to say one last thing, because no one apparently understood the main point. It's all become one big tangent about the hypothetical example and it's all just "well, that's just bad DMing, rawr!"
So here's the point: in Greyhawk, you don't have to avoid the city where Mordenkainen lives. As a DM, you don't have to avoid Mordenkainen, or Bigby, or Tenser for that matter. They don't have to be away on holidays or epic adventures. Why? Because the level of metagame knowledge is minimal by comparison. When one of them says, "sorry, I have other things I must do and cannot be involved," it doesn't feel like a cheat because they're not divine servants of a good deity. Furthermore, there are so few archmages in the Flanaess compared to Faerun, you probably won't have random archmages showing up to help your party when something big is going down.
Can you run an adventure that has a massive demon invasion of Waterdeep and NOT expect Khelben, Laeral, the Wands family, etc. etc. etc. to all respond? You've all basically said also that I should've just kept the whole thing out of Shadowdale. But as a DM, why should I?
It's bad for a setting when as a DM you "should not" have certain adventures in certain areas.
In Faerun there are limits on what one can do as a DM, not only because of how many high level NPCs are dotted all over the place, but also because all of your players are probably familiar with the big name NPCs and their motivations/tactics. It's not just about Elminster, it's pervasive.
And yeah, you could have Elminster and Storm act like big smarmy d-bags and railroad them away from Shadowdale... but after a while that's just as annoying.
Mordenkainen doesn't live in a city.
This of course doesn't invalidate your point, but I thought I'd mention it. As for your main argument, I agree with it.Of course, it is fair to note that if your interest in the Realms is reading about the characters rather than playing, this won't affect you at all. I am now of the opinion that using a game setting as a shared-world setting for novels was a mistake, damaging to the plausibility of both. Though of course also profitable. And there certainly were people who read the novels because they were FR canon,.
Can you run an adventure that has a massive demon invasion of Waterdeep and NOT expect Khelben, Laeral, the Wands family, etc. etc. etc. to all respond? You've all basically said also that I should've just kept the whole thing out of Shadowdale. But as a DM, why should I?
It's bad for a setting when as a DM you "should not" have certain adventures in certain areas.
In Faerun there are limits on what one can do as a DM, not only because of how many high level NPCs are dotted all over the place, but also because all of your players are probably familiar with the big name NPCs and their motivations/tactics. It's not just about Elminster, it's pervasive.
Sure you could run that invasion of Waterdeep, include all those heroic types, and still have plenty of room for the PCs to do their thing and shine in the spotlight. Depends on how you want the adventure to run though... if you wan the PCs to save the day, have them save the day. Its not unreasonable to conclude that Khelben and company would be more concerned with protecting the citizenry and holding the line more than they would be about severing the leadership of the demon army. Its not unreasonable for Piergeiron to assign seasoned adventurers to holding the Underdark approaches to the city. Its also not unreasonable for the party to be equipped by said NPCs with the right tools for the job while they saw to the overall defense of the city. Just alter your viewpoint a little to think of these guys as (modern) generals rather than as commandos or one man armies and the scenario becomes much more doable.
Certainly there are some places where this is more feasible than others... I know I find Cormyr far more restricting than most other places due to Vangey's heavy handed methods, but even that can be worked around if Azoun takes a liking to the PCs and gives them important assignments. Or even Filfaeril. There are plenty of ways you can bypass most NPCs while still maintaining coherent plausability really, if you're of a mind to do it. It just depends on how you view NPCs in general within the context of the game world.
Even with the dracolich in Shadowdale example, if you feel you must involve Elminster and company, have them protect the civilians from the minions and cultists supporting the attack while the PCs deal with the dracolich, since they're probably much better equipped at that moment than Elminster and Storm are for dealing with it, since they've been preparing for the confrontation, while those two weren't. Certainly those two could be equipped with some warning, but while they're off gathering gear from various caches, people are dying, so isn't it much better to leave it to the guys who are ready rather than wasting lives, while maybe buffing them up a little or giving them some advice on the best tactics to use against it. Then you get the PCs thrilled that they saved the day, killed the dracolich, and pulled Shadowdale's collective arse out of the fire, while still getting to be involved with famous NPCs, and maybe even saving them a little too. Then its off to the Old Skull for some beer, and even some flirting with a famous bard maybe...
If it makes you feel better, I understood your point perfectly and I happen to 100% agree with what you have wrote (the theory behind it that is).
Thanks. I'm sure I could make my arguments more elegant and detailed, I just usually try to write free-form.
Mordenkainen doesn't live in a city. This of course doesn't invalidate your point, but I thought I'd mention it. As for your main argument, I agree with it.
Yeah, I tend to forget about his citadel. When I wrote this, I think I was picturing one of the conclave meetings in Greyhawk. Anyways, thanks for the support.
Sure you could run that invasion of Waterdeep, include all those heroic types, and still have plenty of room for the PCs to do their thing and shine in the spotlight...
I'm definitely not saying it's impossible. After all, really clever DMs can wing their way through almost any scenario. Mainly, though, I'm just saying that it's a ton simpler in settings where we don't have a huge amount of metagame knowledge. But extra work is extra work, and I really believe that this is one of the big reasons why people who didn't like the Realms stayed away until 4E.
Sounds like the players are running the game instead of the DM!
When I wrote the little story you're referring to, it was a highly tongue-in-cheek response to Goldomark's post.
I am so proud of you guys, 4 pages in and no flamethrowers...
I had forgot about El being retired.
Just remember that old saying "Not in my Realms..."
Jhast whats up with the abs?
Trying out different icons.
Sure you could run that invasion of Waterdeep, include all those heroic types, and still have plenty of room for the PCs to do their thing and shine in the spotlight...
I'm definitely not saying it's impossible. After all, really clever DMs can wing their way through almost any scenario. Mainly, though, I'm just saying that it's a ton simpler in settings where we don't have a huge amount of metagame knowledge. But extra work is extra work, and I really believe that this is one of the big reasons why people who didn't like the Realms stayed away until 4E.
This is why I dislike the New Realms...because some people did not like the high level NPCs...the multitude of gods...etc. Fine they pretty much made Eberron for these people.
Now they revised it and made it more Eberronish...ok...so what about the fans who actualy can deal with alot of gods and high level NPCs? Not everyoine will like a setting...but what they did to the Realms is...
Removing the steampunk elements from Eberronm because some people don't play in that setting because they don't like it.
or
Removing the defiling magic from Dark Sun because some people don't like it...etc
I really think they shot themselves in the foot here.
and I really believe that this is one of the big reasons why people who didn't like the Realms stayed away until 4E.
Only to still not come near after 4e?
I'm definitely not saying it's impossible. After all, really clever DMs can wing their way through almost any scenario. Mainly, though, I'm just saying that it's a ton simpler in settings where we don't have a huge amount of metagame knowledge. But extra work is extra work, and I really believe that this is one of the big reasons why people who didn't like the Realms stayed away until 4E.
Sure, but by the converse, some find it much easier when you have all the pieces there to mess with as they see fit, rather than trying to come up with stuff whole cloth. It just depends on ones preferred approach and what one wants out of a setting... different strokes for different folks and all that. It kinda comes down to an issue of just not playing in a setting if the set up isn't conducive to your style. Personally, I loved all those NPCs and gods in the Realms, and didn't much care for Greyhawk beyond a couple of elements here and there.
Seems kinda simple to me... if you don't like the base presumptions of a setting, either change it to something you do like, or use a setting that appeals more. I get why WotC changed the Realms and felt they had to, it makes sense from a business perspective. But to be honest, I don't think it makes sense from a gaming perspective... its just too one-size fits all, too much attempt at making everything broadly appealing rather than niche focused. But lately, business (in general, not just WotC) has hated the idea of niches for some reason, so I can't say I find it suprising, just a bit disappointing, as gaming traditionally tends to be a little niche right from the word go. I understand they want to change that image, and to a large degree I think they're right to do so, I just don't like the collateral damage it leaves in its wake.
The Forgottem Realms was already embedded way too deep to survive the 4th edition change intact.
I'm just going to say one last thing, because no one apparently understood the main point. It's all become one big tangent about the hypothetical example and it's all just "well, that's just bad DMing, rawr!"
So here's the point: in Greyhawk, you don't have to avoid the city where Mordenkainen lives. As a DM, you don't have to avoid Mordenkainen, or Bigby, or Tenser for that matter. They don't have to be away on holidays or epic adventures. Why? Because the level of metagame knowledge is minimal by comparison. When one of them says, "sorry, I have other things I must do and cannot be involved," it doesn't feel like a cheat because they're not divine servants of a good deity. Furthermore, there are so few archmages in the Flanaess compared to Faerun, you probably won't have random archmages showing up to help your party when something big is going down.
Can you run an adventure that has a massive demon invasion of Waterdeep and NOT expect Khelben, Laeral, the Wands family, etc. etc. etc. to all respond? You've all basically said also that I should've just kept the whole thing out of Shadowdale. But as a DM, why should I?
It's bad for a setting when as a DM you "should not" have certain adventures in certain areas.
In Faerun there are limits on what one can do as a DM, not only because of how many high level NPCs are dotted all over the place, but also because all of your players are probably familiar with the big name NPCs and their motivations/tactics. It's not just about Elminster, it's pervasive.
And yeah, you could have Elminster and Storm act like big smarmy d-bags and railroad them away from Shadowdale... but after a while that's just as annoying.
Then get rid of them. Let your players know that you are using the Forgotten realms as a game setting and not a novel setting. Do not want Khelben in Waterdeep when there is a demon invasion? Then Khelben just say that Khelben never existed!
And most people here got your point. Some of us just did not agree with your point. You keep going on and on about how pervasive all these NPCs are and act like you can not do anything about it. But, you are the DM. It is YOUR world. Once you start your campaign that world no longer belongs to TSR/Wizards of the Coast, Ed Greenwood, Salvatore, or anyone else. It is yours to do with as you please. And, no offense intended, but if you cannot suspend your meta-knowledge enough to work around the possibility of Elminster not being around Shadowdale when it is attacked by a dracolich (or any other situation involving famous NPCs) and not be able to feel that your game is cheapened then is that really the fault of the game setting? Or might it be your own fault?
... is that really the fault of the game setting?
Yes.
Provided that setting has, through the majority of its gaming products and novels, depicted the Chosen, et al., like unto superheroes (which TSR and WotC have done).
Granted, a deeper reading of the relevant sourcebooks would disabuse one of this notion, but not every gamer has a stack of fifteen year old Realms sourcebooks at home (or knows about the Candlekeep.com forums).
Or might it be your own fault?
Nope. Not at all.
A DM cannot be responsible for the presuppositions and opinions his or her players bring to a gaming table.
Anyone, anywhere, with any gaming experience at all knows that players like knowing things and lording it over each other (and their DMs).
It's been shown time and again that TSR and WotC have produced an impression in many a gamer's mind that the Chosen are Superheroes bent on saving the Realms every Tenday with narry a break every four years for Shieldmeet. This impression is in error, but it exists nonetheless.
"It's your game" pretends not to know what it's like for a DM to have to all but fight his way past the opinions of his players, especially when they have sourcebooks to fall back on for proof!
...
Yep, I can argue both sides of the fence. And I always win. ;)
Then get rid of them. Let your players know that you are using the Forgotten realms as a game setting and not a novel setting. Do not want Khelben in Waterdeep when there is a demon invasion? Then Khelben just say that Khelben never existed!
And most people here got your point. Some of us just did not agree with your point. You keep going on and on about how pervasive all these NPCs are and act like you can not do anything about it. But, you are the DM. It is YOUR world. Once you start your campaign that world no longer belongs to TSR/Wizards of the Coast, Ed Greenwood, Salvatore, or anyone else. It is yours to do with as you please. And, no offense intended, but if you cannot suspend your meta-knowledge enough to work around the possibility of Elminster not being around Shadowdale when it is attacked by a dracolich (or any other situation involving famous NPCs) and not be able to feel that your game is cheapened then is that really the fault of the game setting? Or might it be your own fault?
Again, this is a hypothetical argument, and has little to nothing to do with what I personally do in my own game. Absolutely I can take the Realms and divorce them from novel canon. I can rip out NPCs entirely or change them such that being a Chosen of Mystra is merely a title. But even if I do that, players will come to the table with their own preconceived notions about how the Realms should be while they're playing. It doesn't matter that some or even all of those notions might be wrong, this is just the way things are after decades of novels for the setting.
For the sake of pure argument, and not for "truth" (whatever that may be), take the perspective that you're going to DM a 3.5E Realms game. You have gathered up a batch of players, and their level of experience with the Realms is limited to having read novels about Elminster, the various Chosen, and so forth. Their level of metagame knowledge means that I probably have to remove a lot of the high-powered NPCs, make them dramatically different, or run my game somewhere relatively far away from those NPCs like Vaasa or the Vilhon reach.
Oh, right...! You moved your game to a far-away region so you wouldn't have to deal with all those powerful NPCs.
But the point is, and remains, that I shouldn't have to, and you shouldn't have to either. If I have to cleave out a bunch of high-powered NPCs, de-power them, or move my campaign somewhere in the Realms that it won't matter, why on Earth did I pay for the campaign guide in the first place? To extend your original argument, why shouldn't I just run a homebrew? I should be able to use a campaign guide mostly as it's written. That's the whole point of a shared world, after all.
On some level, even though you're vociferously disagreeing with me, you know that those NPCs are problematic or you would not have moved your game to a distant region.
In my game right now, one of my players is a good drow Bladesinger. He wanted to be friends with Drizzt and Qilué. Yeah, I know. And he is 30 lol. But I gave it to him and he his happy.
He doesn't want to go see Drizzt, but during a fight he will say Drizzt showed me that manoeuver or I should Drizzt this manoeuvre. It is silly, but makes him happy, so why not?
Nothing wrong with this at all. It's nostalgic, and makes the player happy. Seems like a completely appropriate use of those NPCs. It's not like they'd come rescue the party at the first sign of trouble.
Provided that setting has, through the majority of its gaming products and novels, depicted the Chosen, et al., like unto superheroes (which TSR and WotC have done).
Granted, a deeper reading of the relevant sourcebooks would disabuse one of this notion, but not every gamer has a stack of fifteen year old Realms sourcebooks at home (or knows about the Candlekeep.com forums).
Both completely true.
It's even worse when you get a young or very new player who's only read novels and says "I want silver fire, just like Elminster!"
*headache ensues*
Anyone, anywhere, with any gaming experience at all knows that players like knowing things and lording it over each other (and their DMs).
It's been shown time and again that TSR and WotC have produced an impression in many a gamer's mind that the Chosen are Superheroes bent on saving the Realms every Tenday with narry a break every four years for Shieldmeet. This impression is in error, but it exists nonetheless.
"It's your game" pretends not to know what it's like for a DM to have to all but fight his way past the opinions of his players, especially when they have sourcebooks to fall back on for proof
Completely and totally true, including the part that the impression is ultimately an error.
Stephen Colbert would give that statement a 10/10 for truthiness. And he knows D&D.
And most people here got your point. Some of us just did not agree with your point. You keep going on and on about how pervasive all these NPCs are and act like you can not do anything about it. But, you are the DM. It is YOUR world.
I'm going to disagree here vehmently. As long as the novels are canon it's not my world.
Eberron? That's my world.
Dark Sun? Yep, that's my world as well.
Forgotten Realms? It's not my world in the least, it's someone elses and they're telling me what important happens in it: Because what they write is canon for the game setting.
That's why I hate novels being canon. No novel in Eberron or DS (presumably) will matter to my game in the least because nothing wrote in those books affects my world. It's not my world when someone else is deciding what is it in and my players (if they are interested in FR) are playing it because of that evolving world.
Provided that setting has, through the majority of its gaming products and novels, depicted the Chosen, et al., like unto superheroes (which TSR and WotC have done).
Granted, a deeper reading of the relevant sourcebooks would disabuse one of this notion, but not every gamer has a stack of fifteen year old Realms sourcebooks at home (or knows about the Candlekeep.com forums).
Pretty much. I don't read candlekeep and I didn't even seriously use the internet to talk about DnD until I registered on this forum (my registration date will clearly show you when that was). I never participated on these boards during the early days of 3E (after the FRCS was released) though because they were, almost exclusively vicious canon wars over novels. I mean, the novels boards were the most vicious thing I ever saw on a forum in terms of personal attacks and just people being huge douchebags to the various authors (actually, before certain people left there was still some of that in some threads here, just like the good old days).
Given that I didn't read any FR novels, I felt the requirement to start reading them and for the most part they weren't really anything I had any interest in. I do remember the hilarity on the forums when Troy Denning exploded Tilverton - the argument then was clearly between "canonists" and people who were "Well you can just ignore the novels". That carried on for the most part and of course we had the novel forums shut down entirely after a while (which to this day still proves the point in my mind that novels being canon was a terrible idea in every manner).
I wouldn't have so much of a dislike for many of the chosen and similar if it wasn't for the novels that basically turned them into deus ex machina, 100" thick plot armored "superheroes" for lack of a better term. If novels weren't canon I wouldn't care, but it's not my world when novels are canon and when novels do affect the game setting. Similarly, I have great sympathy for those who like the novels yet have been subjected to characters they enjoyed dying due to the game setting advancing 100 years. Essentially wizards have produced this dumb situation where nobody wins. People who don't want novels as canon because they may have events that affect their game aren't much better off - albeit recent novels have really toned down on RSEs. People who like the novels are much worse off because all the characters they liked from previous novels are basically dead.
I mean with non-canon novels and a setting that doesn't care about novels you don't need to do dumb things to fix problems. Eberron in 4E is basically very similar to Eberron in 3E. Dark Sun sets a time, draws a line in the sand and says "This novel series MIGHT be a possible future". That's the way any game setting should work. This novel is a possibility. These characters are possibilities as maybe they die or even fail in my world? Oh wait, the novels are canon so players know they didn't. Anyone can say "Oh just ignore the novels" but it's not that easy when they dictate what is happening in the setting. If the DM is keeping canon and the players aren't, well the players are plain screwed aren't they? If the PCs like the canon and the DM doesn't, they either have to accept that or grumble about it (or find someone else to play with). That's also partly where Jorunhasts examples about the PCs going to find X NPC or similar come in.
I like Eberron because I can do anything I want in the setting. It's self contained, if I want inspiration on something like aberrant marks there are some novels that cover them. I can read those and they provide possibilities. They don't provide canon, possibilities and that is something I vastly prefer. I will grant in fairness that none of my PCs recently have cared that much about FR canon at all and I haven't been unhappy about this point. It means I've enjoyed my recent 1-30 game (about to end) and am seriously considering running another FR game in the future (Maybe the Moonshaes, with that gorgeous map from Dragon it begs for a pirate themed campaign hmmm...). At the same time, I no longer try to pay attention to novels and I don't hestitate to change anything I want now - something oddly the spellplague really encouraged me to do.
Then get rid of them. Let your players know that you are using the Forgotten realms as a game setting and not a novel setting. Do not want Khelben in Waterdeep when there is a demon invasion? Then Khelben just say that Khelben never existed!
And most people here got your point. Some of us just did not agree with your point. You keep going on and on about how pervasive all these NPCs are and act like you can not do anything about it. But, you are the DM. It is YOUR world. Once you start your campaign that world no longer belongs to TSR/Wizards of the Coast, Ed Greenwood, Salvatore, or anyone else. It is yours to do with as you please. And, no offense intended, but if you cannot suspend your meta-knowledge enough to work around the possibility of Elminster not being around Shadowdale when it is attacked by a dracolich (or any other situation involving famous NPCs) and not be able to feel that your game is cheapened then is that really the fault of the game setting? Or might it be your own fault?
Again, this is a hypothetical argument, and has little to nothing to do with what I personally do in my own game. Absolutely I can take the Realms and divorce them from novel canon. I can rip out NPCs entirely or change them such that being a Chosen of Mystra is merely a title. But even if I do that, players will come to the table with their own preconceived notions about how the Realms should be while they're playing. It doesn't matter that some or even all of those notions might be wrong, this is just the way things are after decades of novels for the setting.
For the sake of pure argument, and not for "truth" (whatever that may be), take the perspective that you're going to DM a 3.5E Realms game. You have gathered up a batch of players, and their level of experience with the Realms is limited to having read novels about Elminster, the various Chosen, and so forth. Their level of metagame knowledge means that I probably have to remove a lot of the high-powered NPCs, make them dramatically different, or run my game somewhere relatively far away from those NPCs like Vaasa or the Vilhon reach.
Oh, right...! You moved your game to a far-away region so you wouldn't have to deal with all those powerful NPCs.
But the point is, and remains, that I shouldn't have to, and you shouldn't have to either. If I have to cleave out a bunch of high-powered NPCs, de-power them, or move my campaign somewhere in the Realms that it won't matter, why on Earth did I pay for the campaign guide in the first place? To extend your original argument, why shouldn't I just run a homebrew? I should be able to use a campaign guide mostly as it's written. That's the whole point of a shared world, after all.
On some level, even though you're vociferously disagreeing with me, you know that those NPCs are problematic or you would not have moved your game to a distant region.
Actually, the real reason I put my game in the Vilhon Reach area was because I needed a place with enough space where I could plop in 60+ unique cities. I also wanted a region where there was some background information in place to give a background but was undeveloped enough to allow me the creativity to build my one region. I also wanted it to be close to developed areas (such as Cormyr and The Sea of Fallen Stars) in case my creativity slowed down and I needed to rely on developed material. The fact that the area was devoid of famous NPCs was just a happy coincidence.
Regarding your 3.5 FR example, I would have enough trust in my players to be mature enough to not want to go running off to Elminster every time things get difficult or if they cannot identify an item and to be mature enough that they would not let the presence of Elminster in the area detract from their enjoyment of the game or let it ruin their game experience. If, to use your previous example, they were in Shadowdale and Elminster was not and the group had to fight off a Dracolich they would not think that the were playing second string to Elminster or that he was off doing something more important. They would just accept that he was doing something else, and that is it. I know that my group's gaming experience would not somehow be cheapened because they thought that this dracolich was not important enough for Elminster to come and fight. Sure, they might be suppressing meta-knowledge, but they would do it successfully and they would not enjoy the game any less than someone who knew absolutely nothing about the Forgotten Realms or any of the major NPCs. Does that make them unique? I do not know. To me they would behave in exactly the same way that just about every player I have ever known would act. Again, maybe I am unique in my experience but my experience is that even players who are intimately versed with all the big NPCs in the Realms simply do not let their presence detract from their game in any way, shape or form.
Also, please do not take anything that I have said in as a personal attack.
Did you actually read the thread, T_S, or are you just jumping in with your usual 'but the 4E Realmz r great!' thing again?
If I didnt read the thread then I wouldnt of posted what I did. I could post quotes, but lots of people were talking about problems with previous editions, mostly the Uber powerful npcs, so that would be a whole mess of quotes.
Did you even read my post? IM wondering how you get "4e is Great" from my comments posted in this thread?
I just realized you had a smiley face in there, I think I may have taken your post a little more seriously than I was supposed to. It just really irks me when people accuse me of not reading the thread, Like I just get on here, and go to random threads, and post random posts. Hey! you know, that aint too bad of an idea!!!
I heard that Ed Greenwood was doing some stuff over at Paizo for Pathfinder. I think it would have been best if they sold the rights to the Forgotten Realms to Paizo and let Ed continue the Realms the way it was. If they didn't want to sell the rights then they should have just retired the setting. I hate seeing it suffer like this.
The Forgottem Realms was already embedded way too deep to survive the 4th edition change intact.
If they (WotC) did retire the setting, the rights would revert back to ED, and he could do with it what he liked, might be pretty interesting, but I dont think WotC will be doing that any time soon. I think they should give Ed more control, of course so should of TSR, I think alot of Ed's plans and Ideas that they never let him do would be some great stuff, Ed was always wanted to do more fluff and lore, but TSR/WotC seem to think that doesnt sell. Id love to see more editionless books like the Grand History, just full of lore, no game mechanics, that would be sweet.
And most people here got your point. Some of us just did not agree with your point. You keep going on and on about how pervasive all these NPCs are and act like you can not do anything about it. But, you are the DM. It is YOUR world.
I'm going to disagree here vehmently. As long as the novels are canon it's not my world.
Eberron? That's my world.
Dark Sun? Yep, that's my world as well.
Forgotten Realms? It's not my world in the least, it's someone elses and they're telling me what important happens in it: Because what they write is canon for the game setting.
That's why I hate novels being canon. No novel in Eberron or DS (presumably) will matter to my game in the least because nothing wrote in those books affects my world. It's not my world when someone else is deciding what is it in and my players (if they are interested in FR) are playing it because of that evolving world.
Rule 0. It comes down to Rule 0. It is only canon if you let it be canon. Every single book put out by TSR/Wizards of the Coast is ultimately just an optional supplement.
For example, if you purchase the Forgotten Realms boxed set and a couple of supplements and are running your game and having fun and suddenly TSR releases all the stuff about the Time of Troubles, what obligation do you have to use said material? The simple truth is that you do not have to use it. And if you do not use it then it certainly cannot be canon in your game.
(my registration date will clearly show you when that was).
Wow. It is not often that I encounter someone on here who has been here longer than myself!
If novels weren't canon I wouldn't care, but it's not my world when novels are canon and when novels do affect the game setting.
But you do not have to let them affect the game setting that you are running. When a novel comes out and says that Tilverton blew up what obligation is there for you to accept that in your world? It is not like Troy Denning would come to your house and change the Tilverton map symbol from that of a city to ruins and update all of your material to reflect the fact that it has been blown up.
I am personally a huge fan of the Forgotten Realms novels and have read a large number of them. I like the depth that the world has. I like the personalities of Elminster and Drizzt and the Bouldershoulder Brothers and (especially!) the Gutbuster Brigade and nearly everything else. But, to me the world of the novels is not the world of my game. They are two completely different worlds. If something from the novels intrigues me enough to want to use it in my game then I will use it. If I do not like something from the novels then I do not use it. But, the decision is not that of TSR/Wizards of the Coast, not the Authors, and not my Players (though I do value their opinions and listen to their ideas). It is utlimately my decision and my decision alone.
To me the Forgotten Realms is like an infinite number of alternate universes. Every single DM runs his own unique version of the Forgotten Realms. Some of them might use every single sourcebook and every bit of information from every single novel, but some of them might simply just use the maps with the names on them and build everything else from the scratch up. The number of different worlds is only limited by the number of people who play the game.
Then get rid of them. Let your players know that you are using the Forgotten realms as a game setting and not a novel setting. Do not want Khelben in Waterdeep when there is a demon invasion? Then Khelben just say that Khelben never existed!
And most people here got your point. Some of us just did not agree with your point. You keep going on and on about how pervasive all these NPCs are and act like you can not do anything about it. But, you are the DM. It is YOUR world. Once you start your campaign that world no longer belongs to TSR/Wizards of the Coast, Ed Greenwood, Salvatore, or anyone else. It is yours to do with as you please. And, no offense intended, but if you cannot suspend your meta-knowledge enough to work around the possibility of Elminster not being around Shadowdale when it is attacked by a dracolich (or any other situation involving famous NPCs) and not be able to feel that your game is cheapened then is that really the fault of the game setting? Or might it be your own fault?
Let me ask you a question. When Azoun died, or Khelben died, or the 4e Realms came along and killed off most of the famous NPCs, did people shrug their shoulders in response? Or were some up in arms claiming 'it isn't the Realms any more'? An awful lot of people seem to think that getting rid of the NPCs and reducing the level of detail are terrible things to do to the Realms, yet here you are suggesting getting rid of them, and other people are suggesting using less detailed areas to avoid clashing with canon.
Rule 0. It comes down to Rule 0. It is only canon if you let it be canon. Every single book put out by TSR/Wizards of the Coast is ultimately just an optional supplement.
I'll grant you have some DMing experience.
For all that, the very salient point you seem to be missing (or at least not acknowledging) is that the expectations and comprehension level of the Realms held by the players in a game are what rule the roost.
It's their mentality and their relative gaming maturity (read: ability to let metagame knowledge stay by the wayside or interfere with play) that determines how a game will run.
Smart, experienced DMs know their players. A DM just can't Rule 0 something out without first considering his or her play group.
Most players who understand the Realms to some degree aren't going to accept lots of DM hand-waving, because that's not the setting they want to play in. Players anchor their character backgrounds and expectations on their knowledge of the setting.
Rule 0 sounds nice (and it even works, for rules-based issues), but it's hardly a practical solution for the very real non-rules issues brought up in this thread.
I was actually waiting for that +2 skill checks for survival.
You can be the star of the show without being the most powerful number wise. If 4th editions goal if to make players become the baddest thing on the planet then that sounds just to video gamish to me.
There are many novels out there that don't include Drizzt, Gand.. mean Elminster, the Sisters etc.... The Realms is a really really big place.
Rule 0. It comes down to Rule 0. It is only canon if you let it be canon. Every single book put out by TSR/Wizards of the Coast is ultimately just an optional supplement.
I'll grant you have some DMing experience.
For all that, the very salient point you seem to be missing (or at least not acknowledging) is that the expectations and comprehension level of the Realms held by the players in a game are what rule the roost.
It's their mentality and their relative gaming maturity (read: ability to let metagame knowledge stay by the wayside or interfere with play) that determines how a game will run.
Smart, experienced DMs know their players. A DM just can't Rule 0 something out without first considering his or her play group.
Most players who understand the Realms to some degree aren't going to accept lots of DM hand-waving, because that's not the setting they want to play in. Players anchor their character backgrounds and expectations on their knowledge of the setting.
Rule 0 sounds nice (and it even works, for rules-based issues), but it's hardly a practical solution for the very real non-rules issues brought up in this thread.
I am getting the point that everyone is making, it is just that I have almost never come across players with such expectations or that let such expectations interfere with their enjoyment of the game, so I have a hard time excepting the point. It just seems so "unnatural" to me. Even the most die-hard Realms Fan that I have played with or DM'd for knows that the Realms of the novels are parts of the novels and that the Realms of the game is different. They understand that they can never play in the world of the novels because it would ruin their D&D experience. They know that no matter how famous those other NPCs are (such as Elminster, Drizzt, etc.) their characters are the true stars of the Forgotten Realms,
Maybe the sum of my gaming experience is a rarified one, but it is all that I have to go by.
/Not trying to belittle anyone else's experience or anything negative like that.
Then get rid of them. Let your players know that you are using the Forgotten realms as a game setting and not a novel setting. Do not want Khelben in Waterdeep when there is a demon invasion? Then Khelben just say that Khelben never existed!
And most people here got your point. Some of us just did not agree with your point. You keep going on and on about how pervasive all these NPCs are and act like you can not do anything about it. But, you are the DM. It is YOUR world. Once you start your campaign that world no longer belongs to TSR/Wizards of the Coast, Ed Greenwood, Salvatore, or anyone else. It is yours to do with as you please. And, no offense intended, but if you cannot suspend your meta-knowledge enough to work around the possibility of Elminster not being around Shadowdale when it is attacked by a dracolich (or any other situation involving famous NPCs) and not be able to feel that your game is cheapened then is that really the fault of the game setting? Or might it be your own fault?
Let me ask you a question. When Azoun died, or Khelben died, or the 4e Realms came along and killed off most of the famous NPCs, did people shrug their shoulders in response? Or were some up in arms claiming 'it isn't the Realms any more'? An awful lot of people seem to think that getting rid of the NPCs and reducing the level of detail are terrible things to do to the Realms, yet here you are suggesting getting rid of them, and other people are suggesting using less detailed areas to avoid clashing with canon.
Yes, people were up in arms over all of that. But to that I say, "So what?" People were up in arms when 2nd edition came out. People were up in arms when Greyhawk was left by the wayside and the Realms became the star setting. People were up in arms when the Options books came out. People were up in arms when 3rd edition came out. People were up in arms when 3.5 came out. People have been up in arms about various aspects of D&D since the day it was created. That does not mean that they are right. (Nor does it mean that they are wrong!) It just means that they have a very strong opinion about something.
Of course I am here telling people to get rid of the NPCs and reducing the level of detail. This is, after all, what these discussions are about!
Please note, however, that I am not telling those people who think those are terrible things that they are wrong. I am just offering up my opinion on the topic. And just because I might be going against the grain does not mean that I am wrong. It just means that I see things differently. And that is one of the most beautiful aspects of D&D, that people are free to create the game of their choice.Let me ask you a question. When Azoun died, or Khelben died, or the 4e Realms came along and killed off most of the famous NPCs, did people shrug their shoulders in response? Or were some up in arms claiming 'it isn't the Realms any more'? An awful lot of people seem to think that getting rid of the NPCs and reducing the level of detail are terrible things to do to the Realms, yet here you are suggesting getting rid of them, and other people are suggesting using less detailed areas to avoid clashing with canon.
As one of the people "up in arms" (although I didn't make any melodramatic claim such as it wasn't the Realms any more) I would like to clarify my own position with respect to this question.
Yes, I believed and believe that getting rid of the NPCs was a terrible thing to do to the Realms for me, from my novel based Realms viewpoint. I, for one, have no real opinion about the changes that the new edition wrought on the setting because I neither play (1 session) or DM (never) in the Realms.
For me, narratively, with a significant interest (vested) in the survival of the characters in those stories (I can't read much about them if they are dead) these changes were the pits, because unlike a Realms DM, the possibility of handwaving this change out of My Realms does not exist.
And to be blunt, and I do beg your indulgence for this little drop of venom, thanks to the complaints of people who had the option to remove elements they didn't like, an avenue of significant enjoyment has been forcibly removed. Thanks guys. No. Really.
And to be blunt, and I do beg your indulgence for this little drop of venom, thanks to the complaints of people who had the option to remove elements they didn't like, an avenue of significant enjoyment has been forcibly removed. Thanks guys. No. Really.
Lolz. R U mad? :p
(teasing...just teasing)
Let me ask you a question. When Azoun died, or Khelben died, or the 4e Realms came along and killed off most of the famous NPCs, did people shrug their shoulders in response? Or were some up in arms claiming 'it isn't the Realms any more'? An awful lot of people seem to think that getting rid of the NPCs and reducing the level of detail are terrible things to do to the Realms, yet here you are suggesting getting rid of them, and other people are suggesting using less detailed areas to avoid clashing with canon.
As one of the people "up in arms" (although I didn't make any melodramatic claim such as it wasn't the Realms any more) I would like to clarify my own position with respect to this question.
Yes, I believed and believe that getting rid of the NPCs was a terrible thing to do to the Realms for me, from my novel based Realms viewpoint. I, for one, have no real opinion about the changes that the new edition wrought on the setting because I neither play (1 session) or DM (never) in the Realms.
For me, narratively, with a significant interest (vested) in the survival of the characters in those stories (I can't read much about them if they are dead) these changes were the pits, because unlike a Realms DM, the possibility of handwaving this change out of My Realms does not exist.
And to be blunt, and I do beg your indulgence for this little drop of venom, thanks to the complaints of people who had the option to remove elements they didn't like, an avenue of significant enjoyment has been forcibly removed. Thanks guys. No. Really.
I would like to clarify that I never participated in any of those old discussions about killing off NPCs and such, so I had nothing to do with advocating for the removal of those elements that you enjoy. Seriously. I had nothing to do with it. This discussion is the first time that I have ever brought any of this up on a public forum.
I would like to clarify that I never participated in any of those old discussions about killing off NPCs and such, so I had nothing to do with advocating for the removal of those elements that you enjoy. Seriously. I had nothing to do with it. This discussion is the first time that I have ever brought any of this up on a public forum.
Worry not. You will notice that I wasn't mentioning specific people. Believe me, I have no problem calling people out personally for their actions. So on that basis, if you aren't mentioned in a statement (and I don't directly quote you), then you almost certainly aren't the target.
That said, that is my major complaint (to be back on topic) the removal of a lot of characters and their plot lines from the pool of future novel possibilities with the time-jump and the policy of not setting novels (primarily) in the past. I am looking forward to the prologue of Elaine's new novel, but to be entirely honest, and knowing my luck, I fully expect that we will see the heroic exit of Arilyn, Danilo et al. I really do.
In 4E you have WotC showcasing yet another set of NPC's...
Granted we do have overlap on certain NPC's in all editions. It does look like during 3E WotC was moving away from certain NPC's in their novels for whatever reasons, be it new authors, old authors leaving, ectera...
1) Drop my campaign that I had put work into, disregard the NPCs that I had created, shelve the characters that my group had been playing and build everything from the ground up again, since the new books were so sparsely detailed, or...
2) Not give WotC my money.
I made my choice.
I think Aegeri best summed up my feelings and thoughts on this matter. Although, I do think I have something more to add.
The problem was never the NPC's themselves, but rather the perception that developed around them as a result of the novels. Whether this perception is true or false is beside the point. What matters is that some people believed it, and thus for them it was true.
I think Larloch is an excellent example of a good ultra powerful NPC. He is remote, he never leaves Warlocks Crypt, and he virtually never gets directly involved. If Larloch decided to meddle in something, he'd send someone else to do it.
If Elminster had been portrayed in a similar light: Remote, never leaving that remote location, and using the Harpers to meddle and manipulate events - he would be viewed differently.
Does that make an exciting action adventure novel? No.
However, it does work excellent for a D&D game.
As a general rule of thumb, ultra high level NPC's only deal with other ultra level characters (be they PC's or NPC's). By the time PC's are ready to interact with Elminster on a one-to-one basis, they're nearing his equal in power, and are either his ally or his enemy. If they're allies of Elminster then they are working with him doing the stuff you'd see Elminster doing in the novels, and if they're enemies of Elminster they are working on ways to kill or defeat him.
As things stand, though, unless a DM hand waves and declares that is the way things work in his game players will start playing with a completely different perception. Playing in a shared world is a double edged sword. On one side is the good; everyone who sits down at the table likely has some working knowledge of the Realms. This makes getting into the setting much easier. On the other side is the bad; since everyone has a working knowledge of the Realms they sit down at the table with certain expectations. Depending on the type of player, they may or may not like having those expectations violated.
Granted, for the majority of the players this would not be an issue and wouldn't detract from the enjoyability of the game. Yet, the Realms seems to have uniquely spawned a certain type of gamer which I think Aegeri labeled well - he called them "cannonists". These types of players, when gaming in the FR, want as "pure" of an experience as possible.
These are the types of individuals who would claim, that if you change anything about the Realms then "it isn't the Realms anymore." I think that is what a lot of DM's dread - having such a player, which in reality is a spin off of the Rules Lawyer (the Cannon Lawyer). Where as a Rules Lawyer would stand up and say, "That isn't in the rules! That spell / super natural ability / whatever can't do that!" The Cannon Lawyer would stand up and say, "That would never happen! Elminster would never say / do / act like that!"
In the end, I think everyone would have just been much happier had the novels never been made cannon. People such as Iluvrien, those who primarily read and enjoy the novels, would not have been forced to endure massive changes. The authors would have had a much freer hand to write the stories they wanted to write. The D&D players (particularly DM's) would not have to worry about constant cannon changes that would invalidate their campaigns and ongoing stories. The Realms Setting, moving from 3E to 4E would have enjoyed a change similar to that of Eberron, and it wouldn't have created a rift in the community.
Yet, the Realms seems to have uniquely spawned a certain type of gamer which I think Aegeri labeled well - he called them "cannonists". These types of players, when gaming in the FR, want as "pure" of an experience as possible.These are the types of individuals who would claim, that if you change anything about the Realms then "it isn't the Realms anymore." I think that is what a lot of DM's dread - having such a player, which in reality is a spin off of the Rules Lawyer (the Cannon Lawyer). Where as a Rules Lawyer would stand up and say, "That isn't in the rules! That spell / super natural ability / whatever can't do that!" The Cannon Lawyer would stand up and say, "That would never happen! Elminster would never say / do / act like that!"
Now add that type of player to the Living Realms, and the picture becomes much more clearer...;)
Not that Cannon Lawyers are bad, just saying...
;)On the other hand, most of my gaming experience with the Realms has been more like Mock26's, so I tend to come down on his side of the opinion over the matter as a whole. Though I do agree that a Canon Lawyer would be highly annoying and a good candidate for a solid beatdown-with-the-rulebook moment. Thankfully, I don't run into many of those except on forums, and even then its thankfully rare I've found.
Moreover, pulp fantasy characters are rarely interesting enough for me to give them any prolonged notice. 
I've long preferred setting information in sourcebooks and forums over novels and felt putting lore into novels was a cheap move to wring some money from me. But eventually I picked some up and was pleasantly surprised by most authors ways of enhancing those images of the realms I had.
The way novels drive the timeline forward gives me mixed feelings though. One one hand I liked getting the sense that time passes by in the realms at a reserved steady rate. I adored the knowledge that getting to play in the realms ment I could travel to experience or see the changes in the lands where some novels where set in. I liked to have characters that could relate to some event from his own perspective, "grounding" them in Fearuns wild history. I actually liked most of the RSE's that went hand in hand with the pre-spellplague timeline, except when they where ill-fitting for our local FR campaigns.
I have concluded that in my experience, novels being canon has enhanced my campaigns more than they have harmed them. I never seen any of the supposed "Elminster killer parties" or "Let the big guys handle this" situations around my game tables actually happen. To drive home a certain feel of a typically realmsian region, timeperiod or organisation I found novels are a pretty good way to convey the realms' more intimate nooks and crannies.
So keep the novels canon! Make your campaigns your own.
Does that make an exciting action adventure novel? No.
Actually. I think it would...
Better even, as you wouldn't have a main protoganist in the action that you know will never ever die.
Does that make an exciting action adventure novel? No.Actually. I think it would...
Better even, as you wouldn't have a main protoganist in the action that you know will never ever die.
True, but my point was this: If Elminster was just hold up somewhere (like Larloch) and used minions (AKA Harpers) to carry out his work (as IMO he should be doing) then he can't be a protagonist in an action adventure novel. He'd be somewhere chillaxing while someone else did all the work.
Of course, I think it would do wonders for him as a character and as an NPC.
It's always been my view that it's foolish for anyone of Elminster's power, especially with the enemies that he has, to troll around anywhere in public regardless of whether or not he was in disguise. In my mind, it goes back to the saying, "With great power comes great responsibility." Much like the President of the United States can't just "disappear" and go shopping at Wal-Mart all by himself, the same applies to high level characters.
All along the way, as you've risen to power - fighting off demonic invasions, putting down dangerous and nefarious dragons, etc... you've earned yourself quite a few enemies of greater and lesser note.
To put this in perspective, this is the equivalent of running afoul of the mafia. You know that they will do almost anything to see you dead, and will likely kill anyone that happens to interact with you.
Except, of course, in a world of magic your enemies can do -far worse-. Torture and death are mercies that a ruthless black-hearted villain need not worry about.
So there you are walking through this little village that you are rumored to frequent. You're in a disguise, naturally - you want to be safe. But ruthless black-hearted villain 1083 knows that you show up here from time to time based on a rumor. Just to be certain, one of his minions is given a ring to be worn at all times. It will allow him to see through any magical disguise.
...and then there you are, chatting it up with the barmaid. He's sitting in the back of the room drinking and gets up to leave before being seen. He makes his report. This goes on for years. Watching. Waiting. Observing. Eventually, someday, you'll slip and say something you shouldn't. Especially when that -EXTRA STRONG- ale is passed along to you.
Meanwhile, those you've interacted with? Unknowingly they've been turned into pawns. The magic that has been worked upon them is virtually undetectable without extensive close examination. They are reporting every word, every action, every deed and every slip of the tongue to a minion of the villain that wants you.
Then one day, five years later, you're venturing back to the pub you've come to love so well using your disguise. The one that everyone in the village knows you by. The barmaid greets you with her usual crooked smile, and already knows what to get you. It feels good. Over the years you've found yourself coming back here again and again - the people are so warm and welcoming. It's a great place to relax.
As you settle down in your chair by the fire and the barmaid brings you your usual drink, darkness blankets the room. You hear her scream and drop the glass.
This place that you've come to love so well is now a death trap. The villain who wants you so desperately dead has taken every precaution. He's kept his identity hidden and remained patient. He's constructed dormant wardings throughout the pub, which he activates with a single word. There is no escape for you. Only one of you is leaving that pub alive.
Oh, and all the friends you've made? With a single word, dormant magic laid upon their minds is activated and they're drawing their weapons advancing toward you with murder in their eyes.
The last thing you remember, before the villain destroys you is this: "Go ahead, kill them. They're useless to me now."
If Elminster was a PC in one of my games this is the type of things he would face. This is why he would not wish to enter towns or villages. This is why he would not live in Shadowdale. He'd be forced to keep a close circle of friends (the other players, and other equally powerful and capable NPC allies), while keeping the rest of the world at arms length.
One of the things that separates good from evil is the willingness to engage in personal sacrifice. Part of that sacrifice is acknowledging and accepting that it isn't okay to put others in danger because you want to take off the mantle of power and fame for awhile and just be an average Joe. You can't be an average Joe, anymore. You made the decision to leave that behind when you became a hero and a force for good in the world. As a consequence to that you've made numerous enemies, both known and unknown to you, all of which wish to see you dead or worse.
Choices have consequences. Choosing to be a famous hero has consequences.
Good doesn't always win against evil. In fact, IMO, if players believe that then the DM is doing something wrong. It should seem like there is a nearly overwhelming tide of evil, and the only thing that is keeping it at bay are the heroic players and their allies. This is why they make the sacrifices that they make, and that is what makes them heroes.
But then again, I guess that's what separates my interests from a lot of interests of those who like to play D&D. I'm interested in telling collaborative stories and like to focus on the narrative elements of a game. This is balanced against the action adventure, hack 'n slash, gimmie my XP and loot damn it type of play that IMO D&D encourages.
Also there was a point in there somewhere, which seems to have gotten lost in the minor tangent / rant.
While I do agree with your points in a lot of respects Meldread, the tide of evil thing is far too bleak an outlook for me to ever be comfortable. Difference in world view I guess, far too dark for my liking, and a tad too modern a way of thinking if you ask me, but your point does stand. I'd tend to think of El's hanging out in public as a way for him to act as a stalking horse, and letting his minions watch over things around him, since he's the center of attention and they are far more likely to be able to move unseen in his shadow, watching and manipulating while he has the spotlight on him.
But yeah, I don't see him being the big-time protagonist either, just the guy pulling the strings and making you come to him, even if he's not particularly hidden. Easier to have a lot of 'friends' so no one's exactly sure who's your agent, who's just an acquaintance, who's an actual friend, and who's a rival agent that you're being dared to take out for him. I tend to prefer the axiom of keeping friends close, but enemies closer when it comes to El.
It's a stylistic difference.
In the real world, I'd consider a hero as an individual who sacrifices and helps others with no expectation of getting anything in return. Like a guy who gives a vital (spare) organ (like a kidney) to a stranger they don't even know - because they can and the other person needs it. An individual who runs into a burning building, risking death, and enduring physical pain to save someone else's life, etc.
In D&D I view it as much the same. Creating a bleak world, in which you're one of the few "points of light" capable (or willing) to hold back the tide of darkness - not because you personally benefit from it - but because you believe it is the right thing to do... that's a hero. And the heroic actions come from both the dangers and sacrifices the characters must make in order for victory to be possible.
I tend to gravitate toward stories in which the outcome is unknown. You hope the hero wins... but... you also know there is a good chance that he might lose.
I guess that's why books such as a Song of Ice and Fire appeal to me. I knew when picking up those books that Martin didn't hesitate to kill main characters. I knew none of his characters had plot armor. Yet, when you're engrossed in the story and rooting for a particular character... only to see them die... Well, it not only made the story more thrilling it gave it a sense of desperation.
Although I had to put the book down for a few moments to allow the reality of what I had just read sink in... (It was seriously like being punched in the gut.) ...it made the world more real, more alive, more deadly - it enhanced the story.
I like to think that when I'm telling a story that there are consequences to failure. That if the players fail, there really isn't anyone else out there that's going to step up and make things right.
This creates pressure on the players to perform well, IMO, because they know there are serious consequences to failure. They know Elminster isn't going to show up and save the day. They know that they are the first and last line of defense against whatever they're up against.
However, when they're successful - it creates a sense of ultra accomplishment. It makes victory taste extremely sweet.
To me, the knowledge that, even if you failed, someone else would save the day would make any victory experienced hollow. It would make the actions of the characters less heroic.
Just like not everyone would be willing to run into a burning building to save someone else's life (despite what they might say).... not everyone has what it takes to uncover the machinations of the Vampire Lord and face down his undead minions.
But like I said, it's a stylistic difference.
I like it when people can walk away feeling that all their hard work and time has achieved something great. That all their effort really meant something, and that their victory was real and meaningful.
In order to have a -very strong- victory you need to play a high stakes game. 
I bet I could get him to enjoy a darker setting. ;)
Yep, drunk.
That explains a lot about you...
Suddenly, this thread brings to mind the cheap alcohol one can get on the Indian Reservation. Like Thunderbird or Night Train, or bottom-shelf vodka that has no brand and just says VODKA in big white letters. The ones that start out tasting like hangover.
Stigger, just steer clear of them San Francisco boozer-gamers! They may start out playing one game and end up playing another that involves drawing things on your face with markers... or worse! RUN, I SAY! RUN!
Right...
9. Finally, we have a 100-year time gap, to push through the spellplague and the recovery. This not only separated the "old" from the "new" in terms of continuity, by letting nearly all of the old NPCs to die but also to create a clear gap between editions. Designers encouraged people to wrap up old games and campaigns, and leave 3E in the past.
...and they can stop printing the books, to further encourage players to leave the past in the past >.<
What happened between those 100 years?
Where are my favorite Dieties?
Eladrin are Moon-elfs? Great can I give them eyes? LOL!
Where is the great discriptions of the Spell Plague that everything led up too and just skipped?
Drizzt is an Elf he'll be older now but why isn't Elminster dead?
What Szazz Tam failed ascending to godhood but Fzoul Chembryl didn't??? Please, why does Bane need another lacky?
A new land for the Dragonborn??? Give me my old land back!!! Forgotten Realms is a fickle place, It's not like Dragonborn will be welcomed with open arms... good luck to them!
Remember when Tieflings had variety?
Hey! What happened to the playable Yaun-Ti? For that matter... What is with these weird changes in the Yaun-Ti?
One good thing...
Mystra's death made me smile!
Now it makes sense you have wild/wood elves and 'sophisticated elves' (high elves?) and drow. The end. :D
Not "The End", The subraces still exist, they are now almost purely flavour (with the occasional feat) considerations.
What Iluvrien said.
Rule 0. It comes down to Rule 0. It is only canon if you let it be canon. Every single book put out by TSR/Wizards of the Coast is ultimately just an optional supplement.
I'll grant you have some DMing experience.
For all that, the very salient point you seem to be missing (or at least not acknowledging) is that the expectations and comprehension level of the Realms held by the players in a game are what rule the roost.
It's their mentality and their relative gaming maturity (read: ability to let metagame knowledge stay by the wayside or interfere with play) that determines how a game will run.
Smart, experienced DMs know their players. A DM just can't Rule 0 something out without first considering his or her play group.
Most players who understand the Realms to some degree aren't going to accept lots of DM hand-waving, because that's not the setting they want to play in. Players anchor their character backgrounds and expectations on their knowledge of the setting.
Rule 0 sounds nice (and it even works, for rules-based issues), but it's hardly a practical solution for the very real non-rules issues brought up in this thread.
I was actually waiting for that +2 skill checks for survival.
You can be the star of the show without being the most powerful number wise. If 4th editions goal if to make players become the baddest thing on the planet then that sounds just to video gamish to me.
There are many novels out there that don't include Drizzt, Gand.. mean Elminster, the Sisters etc.... The Realms is a really really big place.
Rule 0. It comes down to Rule 0. It is only canon if you let it be canon. Every single book put out by TSR/Wizards of the Coast is ultimately just an optional supplement.
I'll grant you have some DMing experience.
For all that, the very salient point you seem to be missing (or at least not acknowledging) is that the expectations and comprehension level of the Realms held by the players in a game are what rule the roost.
It's their mentality and their relative gaming maturity (read: ability to let metagame knowledge stay by the wayside or interfere with play) that determines how a game will run.
Smart, experienced DMs know their players. A DM just can't Rule 0 something out without first considering his or her play group.
Most players who understand the Realms to some degree aren't going to accept lots of DM hand-waving, because that's not the setting they want to play in. Players anchor their character backgrounds and expectations on their knowledge of the setting.
Rule 0 sounds nice (and it even works, for rules-based issues), but it's hardly a practical solution for the very real non-rules issues brought up in this thread.
I am getting the point that everyone is making, it is just that I have almost never come across players with such expectations or that let such expectations interfere with their enjoyment of the game, so I have a hard time excepting the point. It just seems so "unnatural" to me. Even the most die-hard Realms Fan that I have played with or DM'd for knows that the Realms of the novels are parts of the novels and that the Realms of the game is different. They understand that they can never play in the world of the novels because it would ruin their D&D experience. They know that no matter how famous those other NPCs are (such as Elminster, Drizzt, etc.) their characters are the true stars of the Forgotten Realms,
Maybe the sum of my gaming experience is a rarified one, but it is all that I have to go by.
/Not trying to belittle anyone else's experience or anything negative like that.
Then get rid of them. Let your players know that you are using the Forgotten realms as a game setting and not a novel setting. Do not want Khelben in Waterdeep when there is a demon invasion? Then Khelben just say that Khelben never existed!
And most people here got your point. Some of us just did not agree with your point. You keep going on and on about how pervasive all these NPCs are and act like you can not do anything about it. But, you are the DM. It is YOUR world. Once you start your campaign that world no longer belongs to TSR/Wizards of the Coast, Ed Greenwood, Salvatore, or anyone else. It is yours to do with as you please. And, no offense intended, but if you cannot suspend your meta-knowledge enough to work around the possibility of Elminster not being around Shadowdale when it is attacked by a dracolich (or any other situation involving famous NPCs) and not be able to feel that your game is cheapened then is that really the fault of the game setting? Or might it be your own fault?
Let me ask you a question. When Azoun died, or Khelben died, or the 4e Realms came along and killed off most of the famous NPCs, did people shrug their shoulders in response? Or were some up in arms claiming 'it isn't the Realms any more'? An awful lot of people seem to think that getting rid of the NPCs and reducing the level of detail are terrible things to do to the Realms, yet here you are suggesting getting rid of them, and other people are suggesting using less detailed areas to avoid clashing with canon.
Yes, people were up in arms over all of that. But to that I say, "So what?" People were up in arms when 2nd edition came out. People were up in arms when Greyhawk was left by the wayside and the Realms became the star setting. People were up in arms when the Options books came out. People were up in arms when 3rd edition came out. People were up in arms when 3.5 came out. People have been up in arms about various aspects of D&D since the day it was created. That does not mean that they are right. (Nor does it mean that they are wrong!) It just means that they have a very strong opinion about something.
Of course I am here telling people to get rid of the NPCs and reducing the level of detail. This is, after all, what these discussions are about!
Please note, however, that I am not telling those people who think those are terrible things that they are wrong. I am just offering up my opinion on the topic. And just because I might be going against the grain does not mean that I am wrong. It just means that I see things differently. And that is one of the most beautiful aspects of D&D, that people are free to create the game of their choice.Let me ask you a question. When Azoun died, or Khelben died, or the 4e Realms came along and killed off most of the famous NPCs, did people shrug their shoulders in response? Or were some up in arms claiming 'it isn't the Realms any more'? An awful lot of people seem to think that getting rid of the NPCs and reducing the level of detail are terrible things to do to the Realms, yet here you are suggesting getting rid of them, and other people are suggesting using less detailed areas to avoid clashing with canon.
As one of the people "up in arms" (although I didn't make any melodramatic claim such as it wasn't the Realms any more) I would like to clarify my own position with respect to this question.
Yes, I believed and believe that getting rid of the NPCs was a terrible thing to do to the Realms for me, from my novel based Realms viewpoint. I, for one, have no real opinion about the changes that the new edition wrought on the setting because I neither play (1 session) or DM (never) in the Realms.
For me, narratively, with a significant interest (vested) in the survival of the characters in those stories (I can't read much about them if they are dead) these changes were the pits, because unlike a Realms DM, the possibility of handwaving this change out of My Realms does not exist.
And to be blunt, and I do beg your indulgence for this little drop of venom, thanks to the complaints of people who had the option to remove elements they didn't like, an avenue of significant enjoyment has been forcibly removed. Thanks guys. No. Really.
And to be blunt, and I do beg your indulgence for this little drop of venom, thanks to the complaints of people who had the option to remove elements they didn't like, an avenue of significant enjoyment has been forcibly removed. Thanks guys. No. Really.
Lolz. R U mad? :p
(teasing...just teasing)
Let me ask you a question. When Azoun died, or Khelben died, or the 4e Realms came along and killed off most of the famous NPCs, did people shrug their shoulders in response? Or were some up in arms claiming 'it isn't the Realms any more'? An awful lot of people seem to think that getting rid of the NPCs and reducing the level of detail are terrible things to do to the Realms, yet here you are suggesting getting rid of them, and other people are suggesting using less detailed areas to avoid clashing with canon.
As one of the people "up in arms" (although I didn't make any melodramatic claim such as it wasn't the Realms any more) I would like to clarify my own position with respect to this question.
Yes, I believed and believe that getting rid of the NPCs was a terrible thing to do to the Realms for me, from my novel based Realms viewpoint. I, for one, have no real opinion about the changes that the new edition wrought on the setting because I neither play (1 session) or DM (never) in the Realms.
For me, narratively, with a significant interest (vested) in the survival of the characters in those stories (I can't read much about them if they are dead) these changes were the pits, because unlike a Realms DM, the possibility of handwaving this change out of My Realms does not exist.
And to be blunt, and I do beg your indulgence for this little drop of venom, thanks to the complaints of people who had the option to remove elements they didn't like, an avenue of significant enjoyment has been forcibly removed. Thanks guys. No. Really.
I would like to clarify that I never participated in any of those old discussions about killing off NPCs and such, so I had nothing to do with advocating for the removal of those elements that you enjoy. Seriously. I had nothing to do with it. This discussion is the first time that I have ever brought any of this up on a public forum.
I would like to clarify that I never participated in any of those old discussions about killing off NPCs and such, so I had nothing to do with advocating for the removal of those elements that you enjoy. Seriously. I had nothing to do with it. This discussion is the first time that I have ever brought any of this up on a public forum.
Worry not. You will notice that I wasn't mentioning specific people. Believe me, I have no problem calling people out personally for their actions. So on that basis, if you aren't mentioned in a statement (and I don't directly quote you), then you almost certainly aren't the target.
That said, that is my major complaint (to be back on topic) the removal of a lot of characters and their plot lines from the pool of future novel possibilities with the time-jump and the policy of not setting novels (primarily) in the past. I am looking forward to the prologue of Elaine's new novel, but to be entirely honest, and knowing my luck, I fully expect that we will see the heroic exit of Arilyn, Danilo et al. I really do.
In 4E you have WotC showcasing yet another set of NPC's...
Granted we do have overlap on certain NPC's in all editions. It does look like during 3E WotC was moving away from certain NPC's in their novels for whatever reasons, be it new authors, old authors leaving, ectera...
1) Drop my campaign that I had put work into, disregard the NPCs that I had created, shelve the characters that my group had been playing and build everything from the ground up again, since the new books were so sparsely detailed, or...
2) Not give WotC my money.
I made my choice.
I think Aegeri best summed up my feelings and thoughts on this matter. Although, I do think I have something more to add.
The problem was never the NPC's themselves, but rather the perception that developed around them as a result of the novels. Whether this perception is true or false is beside the point. What matters is that some people believed it, and thus for them it was true.
I think Larloch is an excellent example of a good ultra powerful NPC. He is remote, he never leaves Warlocks Crypt, and he virtually never gets directly involved. If Larloch decided to meddle in something, he'd send someone else to do it.
If Elminster had been portrayed in a similar light: Remote, never leaving that remote location, and using the Harpers to meddle and manipulate events - he would be viewed differently.
Does that make an exciting action adventure novel? No.
However, it does work excellent for a D&D game.
As a general rule of thumb, ultra high level NPC's only deal with other ultra level characters (be they PC's or NPC's). By the time PC's are ready to interact with Elminster on a one-to-one basis, they're nearing his equal in power, and are either his ally or his enemy. If they're allies of Elminster then they are working with him doing the stuff you'd see Elminster doing in the novels, and if they're enemies of Elminster they are working on ways to kill or defeat him.
As things stand, though, unless a DM hand waves and declares that is the way things work in his game players will start playing with a completely different perception. Playing in a shared world is a double edged sword. On one side is the good; everyone who sits down at the table likely has some working knowledge of the Realms. This makes getting into the setting much easier. On the other side is the bad; since everyone has a working knowledge of the Realms they sit down at the table with certain expectations. Depending on the type of player, they may or may not like having those expectations violated.
Granted, for the majority of the players this would not be an issue and wouldn't detract from the enjoyability of the game. Yet, the Realms seems to have uniquely spawned a certain type of gamer which I think Aegeri labeled well - he called them "cannonists". These types of players, when gaming in the FR, want as "pure" of an experience as possible.
These are the types of individuals who would claim, that if you change anything about the Realms then "it isn't the Realms anymore." I think that is what a lot of DM's dread - having such a player, which in reality is a spin off of the Rules Lawyer (the Cannon Lawyer). Where as a Rules Lawyer would stand up and say, "That isn't in the rules! That spell / super natural ability / whatever can't do that!" The Cannon Lawyer would stand up and say, "That would never happen! Elminster would never say / do / act like that!"
In the end, I think everyone would have just been much happier had the novels never been made cannon. People such as Iluvrien, those who primarily read and enjoy the novels, would not have been forced to endure massive changes. The authors would have had a much freer hand to write the stories they wanted to write. The D&D players (particularly DM's) would not have to worry about constant cannon changes that would invalidate their campaigns and ongoing stories. The Realms Setting, moving from 3E to 4E would have enjoyed a change similar to that of Eberron, and it wouldn't have created a rift in the community.
Yet, the Realms seems to have uniquely spawned a certain type of gamer which I think Aegeri labeled well - he called them "cannonists". These types of players, when gaming in the FR, want as "pure" of an experience as possible.These are the types of individuals who would claim, that if you change anything about the Realms then "it isn't the Realms anymore." I think that is what a lot of DM's dread - having such a player, which in reality is a spin off of the Rules Lawyer (the Cannon Lawyer). Where as a Rules Lawyer would stand up and say, "That isn't in the rules! That spell / super natural ability / whatever can't do that!" The Cannon Lawyer would stand up and say, "That would never happen! Elminster would never say / do / act like that!"
Now add that type of player to the Living Realms, and the picture becomes much more clearer...;)
Not that Cannon Lawyers are bad, just saying...
;)On the other hand, most of my gaming experience with the Realms has been more like Mock26's, so I tend to come down on his side of the opinion over the matter as a whole. Though I do agree that a Canon Lawyer would be highly annoying and a good candidate for a solid beatdown-with-the-rulebook moment. Thankfully, I don't run into many of those except on forums, and even then its thankfully rare I've found.
Moreover, pulp fantasy characters are rarely interesting enough for me to give them any prolonged notice. I've long preferred setting information in sourcebooks and forums over novels and felt putting lore into novels was a cheap move to wring some money from me. But eventually I picked some up and was pleasantly surprised by most authors ways of enhancing those images of the realms I had.
The way novels drive the timeline forward gives me mixed feelings though. One one hand I liked getting the sense that time passes by in the realms at a reserved steady rate. I adored the knowledge that getting to play in the realms ment I could travel to experience or see the changes in the lands where some novels where set in. I liked to have characters that could relate to some event from his own perspective, "grounding" them in Fearuns wild history. I actually liked most of the RSE's that went hand in hand with the pre-spellplague timeline, except when they where ill-fitting for our local FR campaigns.
I have concluded that in my experience, novels being canon has enhanced my campaigns more than they have harmed them. I never seen any of the supposed "Elminster killer parties" or "Let the big guys handle this" situations around my game tables actually happen. To drive home a certain feel of a typically realmsian region, timeperiod or organisation I found novels are a pretty good way to convey the realms' more intimate nooks and crannies.
So keep the novels canon! Make your campaigns your own.
Does that make an exciting action adventure novel? No.
Actually. I think it would...
Better even, as you wouldn't have a main protoganist in the action that you know will never ever die.
Does that make an exciting action adventure novel? No.Actually. I think it would...
Better even, as you wouldn't have a main protoganist in the action that you know will never ever die.
True, but my point was this: If Elminster was just hold up somewhere (like Larloch) and used minions (AKA Harpers) to carry out his work (as IMO he should be doing) then he can't be a protagonist in an action adventure novel. He'd be somewhere chillaxing while someone else did all the work.
Of course, I think it would do wonders for him as a character and as an NPC.
It's always been my view that it's foolish for anyone of Elminster's power, especially with the enemies that he has, to troll around anywhere in public regardless of whether or not he was in disguise. In my mind, it goes back to the saying, "With great power comes great responsibility." Much like the President of the United States can't just "disappear" and go shopping at Wal-Mart all by himself, the same applies to high level characters.
All along the way, as you've risen to power - fighting off demonic invasions, putting down dangerous and nefarious dragons, etc... you've earned yourself quite a few enemies of greater and lesser note.
To put this in perspective, this is the equivalent of running afoul of the mafia. You know that they will do almost anything to see you dead, and will likely kill anyone that happens to interact with you.
Except, of course, in a world of magic your enemies can do -far worse-. Torture and death are mercies that a ruthless black-hearted villain need not worry about.
So there you are walking through this little village that you are rumored to frequent. You're in a disguise, naturally - you want to be safe. But ruthless black-hearted villain 1083 knows that you show up here from time to time based on a rumor. Just to be certain, one of his minions is given a ring to be worn at all times. It will allow him to see through any magical disguise.
...and then there you are, chatting it up with the barmaid. He's sitting in the back of the room drinking and gets up to leave before being seen. He makes his report. This goes on for years. Watching. Waiting. Observing. Eventually, someday, you'll slip and say something you shouldn't. Especially when that -EXTRA STRONG- ale is passed along to you.
Meanwhile, those you've interacted with? Unknowingly they've been turned into pawns. The magic that has been worked upon them is virtually undetectable without extensive close examination. They are reporting every word, every action, every deed and every slip of the tongue to a minion of the villain that wants you.
Then one day, five years later, you're venturing back to the pub you've come to love so well using your disguise. The one that everyone in the village knows you by. The barmaid greets you with her usual crooked smile, and already knows what to get you. It feels good. Over the years you've found yourself coming back here again and again - the people are so warm and welcoming. It's a great place to relax.
As you settle down in your chair by the fire and the barmaid brings you your usual drink, darkness blankets the room. You hear her scream and drop the glass.
This place that you've come to love so well is now a death trap. The villain who wants you so desperately dead has taken every precaution. He's kept his identity hidden and remained patient. He's constructed dormant wardings throughout the pub, which he activates with a single word. There is no escape for you. Only one of you is leaving that pub alive.
Oh, and all the friends you've made? With a single word, dormant magic laid upon their minds is activated and they're drawing their weapons advancing toward you with murder in their eyes.
The last thing you remember, before the villain destroys you is this: "Go ahead, kill them. They're useless to me now."
If Elminster was a PC in one of my games this is the type of things he would face. This is why he would not wish to enter towns or villages. This is why he would not live in Shadowdale. He'd be forced to keep a close circle of friends (the other players, and other equally powerful and capable NPC allies), while keeping the rest of the world at arms length.
One of the things that separates good from evil is the willingness to engage in personal sacrifice. Part of that sacrifice is acknowledging and accepting that it isn't okay to put others in danger because you want to take off the mantle of power and fame for awhile and just be an average Joe. You can't be an average Joe, anymore. You made the decision to leave that behind when you became a hero and a force for good in the world. As a consequence to that you've made numerous enemies, both known and unknown to you, all of which wish to see you dead or worse.
Choices have consequences. Choosing to be a famous hero has consequences.
Good doesn't always win against evil. In fact, IMO, if players believe that then the DM is doing something wrong. It should seem like there is a nearly overwhelming tide of evil, and the only thing that is keeping it at bay are the heroic players and their allies. This is why they make the sacrifices that they make, and that is what makes them heroes.
But then again, I guess that's what separates my interests from a lot of interests of those who like to play D&D. I'm interested in telling collaborative stories and like to focus on the narrative elements of a game. This is balanced against the action adventure, hack 'n slash, gimmie my XP and loot damn it type of play that IMO D&D encourages.
Also there was a point in there somewhere, which seems to have gotten lost in the minor tangent / rant.
While I do agree with your points in a lot of respects Meldread, the tide of evil thing is far too bleak an outlook for me to ever be comfortable. Difference in world view I guess, far too dark for my liking, and a tad too modern a way of thinking if you ask me, but your point does stand. I'd tend to think of El's hanging out in public as a way for him to act as a stalking horse, and letting his minions watch over things around him, since he's the center of attention and they are far more likely to be able to move unseen in his shadow, watching and manipulating while he has the spotlight on him.
But yeah, I don't see him being the big-time protagonist either, just the guy pulling the strings and making you come to him, even if he's not particularly hidden. Easier to have a lot of 'friends' so no one's exactly sure who's your agent, who's just an acquaintance, who's an actual friend, and who's a rival agent that you're being dared to take out for him. I tend to prefer the axiom of keeping friends close, but enemies closer when it comes to El.
It's a stylistic difference.
In the real world, I'd consider a hero as an individual who sacrifices and helps others with no expectation of getting anything in return. Like a guy who gives a vital (spare) organ (like a kidney) to a stranger they don't even know - because they can and the other person needs it. An individual who runs into a burning building, risking death, and enduring physical pain to save someone else's life, etc.
In D&D I view it as much the same. Creating a bleak world, in which you're one of the few "points of light" capable (or willing) to hold back the tide of darkness - not because you personally benefit from it - but because you believe it is the right thing to do... that's a hero. And the heroic actions come from both the dangers and sacrifices the characters must make in order for victory to be possible.
I tend to gravitate toward stories in which the outcome is unknown. You hope the hero wins... but... you also know there is a good chance that he might lose.
I guess that's why books such as a Song of Ice and Fire appeal to me. I knew when picking up those books that Martin didn't hesitate to kill main characters. I knew none of his characters had plot armor. Yet, when you're engrossed in the story and rooting for a particular character... only to see them die... Well, it not only made the story more thrilling it gave it a sense of desperation.
Although I had to put the book down for a few moments to allow the reality of what I had just read sink in... (It was seriously like being punched in the gut.) ...it made the world more real, more alive, more deadly - it enhanced the story.
I like to think that when I'm telling a story that there are consequences to failure. That if the players fail, there really isn't anyone else out there that's going to step up and make things right.
This creates pressure on the players to perform well, IMO, because they know there are serious consequences to failure. They know Elminster isn't going to show up and save the day. They know that they are the first and last line of defense against whatever they're up against.
However, when they're successful - it creates a sense of ultra accomplishment. It makes victory taste extremely sweet.
To me, the knowledge that, even if you failed, someone else would save the day would make any victory experienced hollow. It would make the actions of the characters less heroic.
Just like not everyone would be willing to run into a burning building to save someone else's life (despite what they might say).... not everyone has what it takes to uncover the machinations of the Vampire Lord and face down his undead minions.
But like I said, it's a stylistic difference.
I like it when people can walk away feeling that all their hard work and time has achieved something great. That all their effort really meant something, and that their victory was real and meaningful.
In order to have a -very strong- victory you need to play a high stakes game.
I bet I could get him to enjoy a darker setting. ;)
Yep, drunk.
That explains a lot about you...
Suddenly, this thread brings to mind the cheap alcohol one can get on the Indian Reservation. Like Thunderbird or Night Train, or bottom-shelf vodka that has no brand and just says VODKA in big white letters. The ones that start out tasting like hangover.
Stigger, just steer clear of them San Francisco boozer-gamers! They may start out playing one game and end up playing another that involves drawing things on your face with markers... or worse! RUN, I SAY! RUN!
Right...
9. Finally, we have a 100-year time gap, to push through the spellplague and the recovery. This not only separated the "old" from the "new" in terms of continuity, by letting nearly all of the old NPCs to die but also to create a clear gap between editions. Designers encouraged people to wrap up old games and campaigns, and leave 3E in the past.
...and they can stop printing the books, to further encourage players to leave the past in the past >.<
What happened between those 100 years?
Where are my favorite Dieties?
Eladrin are Moon-elfs? Great can I give them eyes? LOL!
Where is the great discriptions of the Spell Plague that everything led up too and just skipped?
Drizzt is an Elf he'll be older now but why isn't Elminster dead?
What Szazz Tam failed ascending to godhood but Fzoul Chembryl didn't??? Please, why does Bane need another lacky?
A new land for the Dragonborn??? Give me my old land back!!! Forgotten Realms is a fickle place, It's not like Dragonborn will be welcomed with open arms... good luck to them!
Remember when Tieflings had variety?
Hey! What happened to the playable Yaun-Ti? For that matter... What is with these weird changes in the Yaun-Ti?
One good thing...
Mystra's death made me smile!
Now it makes sense you have wild/wood elves and 'sophisticated elves' (high elves?) and drow. The end. :D
Not "The End", The subraces still exist, they are now almost purely flavour (with the occasional feat) considerations.
What Iluvrien said.