Eberron, whose flavor I like a whole lot less than Forgotten Realms, was a whole lot easier to deal with and run a game in, so I much preferred that.
I never really purchased any books for 3E Forgotten Realms, and had no interest in running it. This time, I'm going to give the Realms a shot.
I'm looking forward to getting the new books, I already have them preordered. I prefer the 4E system to 3E, and am looking forward to some 4E style FR crunch. In addition, I found the old realms too daunting for a FR novice to try to run. The world was too definined without breathing space for me to create my own game there. I would have had to pick fights with two of my players who are realms scholars about who was running this game. The setting was collapsing under its own weight a bit, which made it not entirely optimal to run a game in.
Eberron, whose flavor I like a whole lot less than Forgotten Realms, was a whole lot easier to deal with and run a game in, so I much preferred that.
I never really purchased any books for 3E Forgotten Realms, and had no interest in running it. This time, I'm going to give the Realms a shot.
Thats cool. I wish you much fun in your game. you are the type of person the design team I would think is trying to appeal to. Unfortunately, its at the expense of alienating many of the old fans.
I just want to get my hands on the darn thing and have at it already.
In addition, I found the old realms too daunting for a FR novice to try to run.
-Why?
-Why?
Too much setting. Too many preconcieved concepts. Too much metaplot. Not enough empty spaces to have creative freedom. Having to deal with players who knew 1000% more about FR than I do.
As long as you can make it yours and have fun with it, that's all that matters.
Too much setting. Too many preconcieved concepts. Too much metaplot. Not enough empty spaces to have creative freedom. Having to deal with players who knew 1000% more about FR than I do.
-Well, not to be "negative", but most of the planet was left undetailed for the DM, the Forgotten Realms don't have a metaplot (Seriously: What is THE metaplot of the setting?), and the player issues are a not a setting-specific problem.
-Concerning the players, whoever they are, being as that you are the DM, you need to let them know that the game is yours, and that the setting they are playing in is YOUR Forgotten Realms.
-Well, not to be "negative", but most of the planet was left undetailed for the DM, the Forgotten Realms don't have a metaplot (Seriously: What is THE metaplot of the setting?), and the player issues are a not a setting-specific problem.
-Concerning the players, whoever they are, being as that you are the DM, you need to let them know that the game is yours, and that the setting they are playing in is YOUR Forgotten Realms.
The new realms are still easier for someone new to the Realms to get into. Less history to deal with. I know you guys are fans, but you have all the time you put into it. The history and especially the present have to be dealt with, and its just easier to start fresh.
As for the players, its just easier not to argue with them. No "Person/God X wouldn't do that" discussions.
As for the players, its just easier not to argue with them. No "Person/God X wouldn't do that" discussions.
-As the DM, you need to put your foot down. In my own game, I never used to be too strict with the rules. If a player said something, most of the time, even if I thought differently, I'd go along with him/her. Recently, I have begun to feel that the players seem to be attempting to "walk all over me", regarding rule issues. For example, someone was arguing that the Druid ability "Trackless Step" was the equivalent of a Freedom of Movement spell, and as such, the Greenvise that was grappling him should not be able to. I found that a little suspect, looked in the books, and found out that his interpretation of the Druid ability was reeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaalllly stretching it, to the umteenth degree. Had I been more 'conservative' with rules in the first place, I don't think my players would try to "push" such things on me.
-With the setting, it's the same thing. You are the DM, and it's your vision of the world. Let them "speak up" now, and they'll do it later. Tell them to proverbially "stick it", and they'll back down. You don't think that, if the players are into the lore, as you said, one of them might argue things in the future? Seems reasonable.
The new realms are still easier for someone new to the Realms to get into. Less history to deal with. I know you guys are fans, but you have all the time you put into it. The history and especially the present have to be dealt with, and its just easier to start fresh.
As for the players, its just easier not to argue with them. No "Person/God X wouldn't do that" discussions.
I don't care one way or the other personally, but I will note this is a common misconception. The new Realms, despite being set 100 years later, are still lore loaded. None of the old lore is invalidated, so your players will still know more about the history than you. It just means they have less to catch up on, and you'll now have to back track to figure out why most of the things covered are important. ;)
-RW
-As the DM, you need to put your foot down. In my own game, I never used to be too strict with the rules. If a player said something, most of the time, even if I thought differently, I'd go along with him/her. Recently, I have begun to feel that the players seem to be attempting to "walk all over me", regarding rule issues. For example, someone was arguing that the Druid ability "Trackless Step" was the equivalent of a Freedom of Movement spell, and as such, the Greenvise that was grappling him should not be able to. I found that a little suspect, looked in the books, and found out that his interpretation of the Druid ability was reeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaalllly stretching it, to the umteenth degree. Had I been more 'conservative' with rules in the first place, I don't think my players would try to "push" such things on me.
-With the setting, it's the same thing. You are the DM, and it's your vision of the world. Let them "speak up" now, and they'll do it later. Tell them to proverbially "stick it", and they'll back down. You don't think that, if the players are into the lore, as you said, one of them might argue things in the future? Seems reasonable.
I do put my foot down. I'm a 2E style DM, and I was born and raised on being god. I don't put up with anything. I'm running this game.
That being said, its still easier to not have it be an issue in the first place.
I don't care one way or the other personally, but I will note this is a common misconception. The new Realms, despite being set 100 years later, are still lore loaded. None of the old lore is invalidated, so your players will still know more about the history than you. It just means they have less to catch up on, and you'll now have to back track to figure out why most of the things covered are important. ;)
-RW
Lore isn't an issue. Its only as big as the geography of your game. You stay local, and so is the lore.
The bigger issue is how much is going on in the present.
Lore isn't an issue. Its only as big as the geography of your game. You stay local, and so is the lore.
The bigger issue is how much is going on in the present.
No more or less than before. Just less information to work with for the DM.
-RW
I borrowed the 3E and 3.5E Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide and read them extensively. I own the 3.5E Eberron Campaign setting. When I read the Eberron book, I got a sense of "I can run this" as a DM. I don't really like the flavor of Eberron at all, but I could see a game in it. I read the FR books extensively, and combined with chatter from the internet and people I game with, I did not get that sense of "I can run this".
you underestimate yourself, my friend. If you can run a decent game, then you can run a decent game anywhere including the Realms. There is no need for you to know the minute details of ancient empires to run a game there.
you underestimate yourself, my friend. If you can run a decent game, then you can run a decent game anywhere including the Realms. There is no need for you to know the minute details of ancient empires to run a game there.
Impressions are 75% of the battle. I purchased Eberron, even though I didn't care for it. The 4E Forgotten Realms guide will be the first FR book I own, and I have an extensive library of 3.5E and am a bit of a collector.
Edit(addition)--It was also more of a case of not seeing a game I wanted to run there.
Impressions are 75% of the battle.
I understand the lore can be a bit daunting, but that is the appeal to the setting really
Yes, focusing on local matters does limit the amount of lore involved, but that's been true regardless of edition. (And in fact, this is usually the first suggestion I make towards people that are approaching things for the first time - ie, you need not know everything, just about the area you're playing in)
The big problem, as LK alluded to, isn't so much with the setting, per se, as it is with the attitudes of certain players. It's been my experience that this sort of player carries this attitude over into other things, not just an insistence on rigid adherence to canon. Thus, blocking them there usually means arguments on other fronts. That aside, there are really two ways you can deal with this in the long term.
The first is, as LK suggests, claiming absolute authority in your game. You are the DM, you have final say. Period. This is as much for the players' sake as it is for yours - it can be just as frustrating or more for a player to have to sit there as another player argues with the DM.
The only real way to block people in this, short of claiming absolute authority, is to create you own world - where you are by default the only source of any information on the world, or the events taking place there. This is the extension of what you're feeling with the changes. In the end though, it's not even so much a way of blocking the players from arguing, as it is a way of shoring up your own assertions of the game you want to run.
All of this brings to mind a game of Vampire the Masquerade I played back in college. At one point, one of the players brought up a particular rule (Humanity - think Alignment, sort of), and how it was used. He tried to argue that another character should lose points (ie have an alignment shift) for actions that character had done. The DM disagreed, and he pressed the issue, citing rules from the book. She put her foot down, and said "That's not how it works in my game. End of story."
Bottom line here... this isn't meant to be some proxy argument over 4th edition vs past editions. While it does have implications on the arguments over the designers' assumptions that the 4E version was built on, that matter is entirely academic now. What I, and I suspect LK and others are indicating, is that regardless of what edition of the rules you play, and regardless of what setting you use (or era of that setting), you will find yourself better served by establishing absolute control over these aspects of your game, as DM, than you will by relying on the setting to do that for you.
Its just one thing in a pile. The biggest one still remains that I didn't see a game I wanted to run in 3.5E Forgotten Realms. For some reason, the changes make me interested this time around.
-Me I plan on sitting down in the local Barnes and Noble with A Starbucks Latte and giving that book a good looking at. If I like it I will buy it. :D
18DELTA ;)
My suggestion on getting set up is this. Read over the 4E FRCS. Pick out five campaign ideas that you -really- like and would love to run. Write up a short synopsis about a paragraph long, preferably in character. Here is an example:
"You are a refugee from the Great Rift that was destroyed in the Spellplague. You've journeyed many miles together with a small group of companions and have gotten to know each other rather well. As you approach the human kingdoms there is general agreement among you, and the others, that fate cannot be allowed to stand. The Dwarves will rise again, from the ashes of the old civilization a new shall be forged, by axe and sword, the humans will make way for the Dwarves in these lands. You will make this a new home for your people."
Then, under that make clear what type of character's they'll be playing:
"The group will consist of all Dwarves, you can choose any subrace of Dwarf you want but Gold Dwarf fits best. Your character must hold strong positive feelings about the Dwarvish race, but not hold too close to custom - a new era has dawned and you're the ones to usher it in. Any alignment works, but unaligned works best. At least one person in the group should probably be a Warlord, if not more than one person."
Think up about five of these ideas. Then toss them out to your players. Let them decide which campaign they want to do.
After that, for the entire first session, have a group discussion on the type of class and character everyone wants to play. Get all the players to have their PC's establish relationships with one another. If you were running the Dwarven adventure, you should probably read up on the Rift and Dwarven culture and heritage. This information can be useful to players in making their characters.
Try and get them to flesh out some personalities for their characters, and just let everyone riff off one another until everyone is excited and ready to create.
Finally, roll up the characters, go over any rules issues, and if you still have time you could always run a prelude adventure of the PC's leaving behind the Great Rift or arriving in human lands - a chance for them to get used to their new character concept and the other PC's.
That's what I'd suggest.
The point I'm trying to make is that the DM should have the final say, and needs to be able/willing to invoke that when necessary in order to keep the game moving, and keep things fun for the group as a whole. This is true whether it's "I'm sorry, but that's how it works in my Realms," "I don't consider the events of that novel/etc to be part of my Realms," or little things like "I'm sorry, but no, I don't think he deserves an alignment shift for that."
Throwing things out there for a vote is fair - it's harder to argue when everyone else agrees and you're the odd man out. Likewise, the game should be fun for everyone, and if people are divided or you're out numbered, then it's something you need to concede. I don't really see it as "my" game or "my" Realms - I see it as "our" game and "our" Realms (the word our referring to those I'm playing with). We're working together, as a team, to craft a really awesome story and have some fun while we are at it.
Points of contention are inevitable, so when they happen it's best to deal with them as fairly as possible rather than invoking DM fiat, which I think most people really find off putting. It then becomes "your" game, and "your" Realms and "your" way. I like to avoid the you-isms. My ego is big enough as it is.
Similarily, a group of young kids would need structure and will waste time debating rules they don't fully understand until the game ends, a hodge-podge cornercase rule is implemented, or the DM eventually puts her foot down.
On Topic: Finally interested in running the Realms.
It's actually making me want to dust off all my old Birthright books and try convertin it over to 4th Ed to try and run something. I think with minions it might work for some of the battles and cinematic fights.... Too many campaign worlds so little time
I've never really had a problem though, and think that, if your group can "handle" it (and I think in almost all cases that most groups can) then it is a superior method to the DM fiat.
I have no problem with changing or modifying the rules, so long as they are applied fairly and equally across the board. It kinda goes like this:
Player: "Shouldn't he get an alignment shift?"
DM: "Um. No, I don't think so, why?"
Player: ""
DM: "No, I don't think so. Does anyone else think that deserves an alignment shift?"
DM: "Okay, then back to the game."
If a problem does come up, and people find themselves in disagreement, push for a quick consensus and move forward. Do not allow arguments to go on, state the point, know where you stand, see if there is disagreement with that stance, and if not push forward.
If you are dealing with a rules lawyer type of person who causes a lot of trouble, it's much easier to keep that under control IMO when you have the rest of the players backing you up. If you are playing with a bunch of Rules lawyers, then it is best to come to a consensus method of dealing with things.
Just state up front, majority vote wins, when that happens all discussion stops and we return to the game. If there are still problems, write it down and make a note, so it can be discussed after the game ends.
The reason I've learned that putting things to a vote works best is because, sometimes, depending on the player, you'll find someone who will argue with you endlessly. They will even grow defensive, and perhaps resentful and become disruptive.
Throwing things out there for a vote is fair - it's harder to argue when everyone else agrees and you're the odd man out. Likewise, the game should be fun for everyone, and if people are divided or you're out numbered, then it's something you need to concede. I don't really see it as "my" game or "my" Realms - I see it as "our" game and "our" Realms (the word our referring to those I'm playing with). We're working together, as a team, to craft a really awesome story and have some fun while we are at it.
Points of contention are inevitable, so when they happen it's best to deal with them as fairly as possible rather than invoking DM fiat, which I think most people really find off putting. It then becomes "your" game, and "your" Realms and "your" way. I like to avoid the you-isms. My ego is big enough as it is.
Sounds like our forums.
Bel
The reason I've learned that putting things to a vote works best is because, sometimes, depending on the player, you'll find someone who will argue with you endlessly. They will even grow defensive, and perhaps resentful and become disruptive.
Again, experience has taught me that this kind of player is only going to keep causing problems. I've seen groups where we spent half or more of the session arguing over things, and even as a third party player, it gets ridiculous. I find that, if anything, votes on what should be done are best only at the start ("So, do you guys want to play FR or Eberron?" etc).
Ultimately, the player you described sounds like one I wouldn't want around, whether I was a player or DM - But then, your mileage may vary. ;)
Meldread: I think the level of autonomy you grant the group depends on how well the group can handle it. If I was playing with 3 rules lawyers, I'd want the DM to be firm on how the rules worked, whether or not she agreed with the rules lawyers.
-Very true.
Again, experience has taught me that this kind of player is only going to keep causing problems. I've seen groups where we spent half or more of the session arguing over things, and even as a third party player, it gets ridiculous.
-This is also very true. Someone who I played with a few times, he was constantly a problem, arguing rules, and other things, in the game. Now, while I am somewhat biased, as I don't really like this person personally, he certainly disrupted the couple of games that I was in that he was playing in as well. And, the DM was one of those "If you make a valid argument, I'll take it into consideration" type of people.
Like causal said, I am hoping for something as accessible as Eberron but with that high fantasy Realms feeling (Though I do enjoy parts of the Eberron setting). I might steal Delta's plan to check out the book at B&B and see if my wishes are fulfilled.
Anyway, the point to the thread is that someone is looking forward to the 4E Realms because they found it overloaded with lore and susceptible to Realms Freaks ruining play at the table.
These aren't myths or misconceptions, but facts. Some of the advice offered up on how to deal with such people was pretty good, but that's beside the point.
I agree with the OP that it's good to have the 4E Realms around because being able to say, "Dude, it's been 100 years since X, Y or Z happened/lived, so things change,” is a whole lot easier than arguing for a half-hour at the gaming table over setting minutia.
On the other hand, much of the old lore can also be used by DMs that are not cursed with a Realms Nazi at the gaming table.
Kind of the best of both worlds.
I’ve only played Buldar’s Gate in the Forgotten Realms and have never DMed there before, so I hope I find something to my taste as I know there are quite a few players interested in a Realms based game.
There are stats for playable Drow in the Monter Manual.
Aye, but racial feats and other options for drow as playable characters will be in the FRPG. So yeah thats what I meant.
There are stats for playable Drow in the Monter Manual.
There may be useful racial feats that the MM lacked for the drow though.
Anyway, the point to the thread is that someone is looking forward to the 4E Realms because they found it overloaded with lore and susceptible to Realms Freaks ruining play at the table.
These aren't myths or misconceptions, but facts. Some of the advice offered up on how to deal with such people was pretty good, but that's beside the point.
Yes, this is absolute and incontrovertible FACT.
This is exactly why I've had such horrible problems running games in the Forgotten Realms as they were, or in introducing new players.
...oh, wait. Gee, I can't seem to remember a single instance of this actually proving to be a problem for me or the people I played with.
It's not "Fact". Facts are true for everyone. It's a 'fact' that he perceived a problem, but that does not make his 'perception' into objective reality for third party observers. It was certainly 'true' for him, but that in no way, shape, or form makes it necessarily true or not true for any other given person.
You want to quit having arguments on this board and just be friendly, not letting everything devolve into "negativity"? Then quit trying to tell the people who happened to like the Realms as they were, that they were somehow horribly wrong for doing so.
Yes, this is absolute and incontrovertible FACT.
It's not "Fact". Facts are true for everyone. It's a 'fact' that he perceived a problem, but that does not make his 'perception' into objective reality for third party observers. It was certainly 'true' for him, but that in no way, shape, or form makes it necessarily true or not true for any other given person.
This is an important distinction. Facts are universal and objective, and are true for everyone. Truth, however, can be subjective and specific, and varies from person to person. Therefore, one's perception that the Realms "needed to change" can be true to that person, but it does not make it a universal truth.
You want to quit having arguments on this board and just be friendly, not letting everything devolve into "negativity"? Then quit trying to tell the people who happened to like the Realms as they were, that they were somehow horribly wrong for doing so.
If people did this, a lot of the tension would vanish from the board.
Yes, I’ve ordered my book and now look forward to getting it from Amazon, though they and Wizards seem confused as to what the cover looks like.
-The cover with Drizzt on it was a placeholder that was never updated on the websites, for whatever reason. The actual cover is that of a Shade riding some kind of Draconic creature in the foreground, with a dark ruin in the background.
Truth, however, can be subjective and specific, and varies from person to person.
UmbralKnight brings up a good point, which allows me to clarify mine: That as far as the OP is concerned, the 3E Realms are overloaded with lore and susceptible to lore jerks ruining play at the table.
I should have stated that better in my previous post. It's clear the way I wrote it left the argument open to misinterpretation (witness Fire Wraith's down-the-wrong-path response), as though I were speaking universally RE: the sum of lore in the Realms and its effects on games.
My bad.
That said, yeah, perception is key here. When I see people giving (good) DMing advice in response to what the OP wrote, all I see are people missing the point.
It’s not whether the OP was doing anything wrong or could have done something better, it’s that he/she sees the 4E Realms as a chance to break away from the negative and (hopefully) move on to the positive.
I for one wish him luck and success. I hope we get to hear about his/her 4E FR campaign in the Running the Realms forum.
Then quit trying to tell the people who happened to like the Realms as they were, that they were somehow horribly wrong for doing so.
You're putting words into my mouth that I never said.
I'm just not averse to pointing out the setting's shortcomings, is all. It had plenty before 4E and now it's got just as many thanks to the crummy job they did with it.
For the record, I've enjoyed the Realms for a long time....probably longer than you, Fire_Wraith. I don't begrudge you or anyone else their enjoyment of it.
I hope those of you who don't like the 4E Realms will return the favor on these forums, when participating in 4E Realms discussions with people that don't share your opinion of the pre-3E Realms.
Buying them, is another issue entirely. :D
-The cover with Drizzt on it was a placeholder that was never updated on the websites, for whatever reason. The actual cover is that of a Shade riding some kind of Draconic creature in the foreground, with a dark ruin in the background.
You mean the picture of the Ringwraith flying over Minas Tirith?
Great LotR pic... ;)
You mean the picture of the Ringwraith flying over Minas Tirith?
Great LotR pic... ;)
-Yes, that one.
I should have stated that better in my previous post. It's clear the way I wrote it left the argument open to misinterpretation (witness Fire Wraith's down-the-wrong-path response), as though I were speaking universally RE: the sum of lore in the Realms and its effects on games.
My bad.
Fair enough - if I overreacted in jumping on you, I apologize - I'd just rather see discussion continue on a fair and even level, and the sort of ill-founded assertions that I took from that first post were ones that I'd like to see people stop making. I'm certainly not perfect to begin with, and it's not like the internet lends itself to clarity and ease of understanding what others intended.
For the record, I've enjoyed the Realms for a long time....probably longer than you, Fire_Wraith. I don't begrudge you or anyone else their enjoyment of it.
Unless you played in Ed's home game, maybe. ;) I've followed the Realms since the Grey Box (which I own) and the first novels - not that it has any real impact here, despite our tendencies (meaning everyone here) to turn such things into badges of honor.
I do hope the OP has fun with it, and that it lives up to his expectations. Had I never known anything about the setting prior to 4th edition, I might think a lot better of it myself - it's not as if it's unplayable, or anything silly like that. :P
Aye, but racial feats and other options for drow as playable characters will be in the FRPG. So yeah thats what I meant.
I see. Giving them the elven racial feats wouldn't be too flavorful.
-The cover with Drizzt on it was a placeholder that was never updated on the websites, for whatever reason. The actual cover is that of a Shade riding some kind of Draconic creature in the foreground, with a dark ruin in the background.
Interesting. I think I prefer the Drizzt cover because of the color scheme. Neither of them feel very Realms like to me, but I won’t know if that’s true until I get my copy.
Interesting. I think I prefer the Drizzt cover because of the color scheme. Neither of them feel very Realms like to me, but I won’t know if that’s true until I get my copy.
-I agree, that neither of them are covers that I would like. But, I like the cover of the FRCS, which, apparently, other people hated. Since the Forgotten Realms don't have a metaplot, and have so many other smaller plots, there isn't one particular scene that conveys the meaning of the setting. That's why I prefer things that are more esoteric, with symbols and designs and whatever else.
Too much setting. Too many preconcieved concepts. Too much metaplot. Not enough empty spaces to have creative freedom. Having to deal with players who knew 1000% more about FR than I do.
You know, I see this particular issue come up alot with this setting and I have to wonder: how much of it is really about the amount of lore that's been printed (which you really don't need to play, but is nice to have available) or the fact that the extensive novel line (most of which I have never, nor will ever read) is considered canon? While the lore is subjective, the novels are not and quoting them as sources would certainly annoy me. I know the fact that this 'novella canon' kept creeping into the supplements I was buying is what lessened my appeal for the Realms after awhile.
This is an important distinction. Facts are universal and objective, and are true for everyone. Truth, however, can be subjective and specific, and varies from person to person. Therefore, one's perception that the Realms "needed to change" can be true to that person, but it does not make it a universal truth.
Correct. What this thread has shown is not the fact that "The Realms had too much lore/too many NPCs/ whatever for ANYONE to get into it," but the fact that that it has had too much for SOME people to get into it. The fact that this thread has people who have said that they couldn't get into it for that reason shows it is true for some, while other posters saying it wasn't a barrier to them shows this is not some kind of universal phenomenon.
If people did this, a lot of the tension would vanish from the board.
Yes! And Lord I wish they would!
Though I would be remiss if I didn't point out that this has gone in both directions on this board and BOTH sides doing this would need to stop for the tension to really ease up.
Yes! And Lord I wish they would!
Though I would be remiss if I didn't point out that this has gone in both directions on this board and BOTH sides doing this would need to stop for the tension to really ease up.
Seconded
Though I would be remiss if I didn't point out that this has gone in both directions on this board and BOTH sides doing this would need to stop for the tension to really ease up.
Good luck. This debate will continue well into the next decade.
Well, as long as MarkusTay's old ass is still around, that is.
You know, I see this particular issue come up alot with this setting and I have to wonder: how much of it is really about the amount of lore that's been printed (which you really don't need to play, but is nice to have available) or the fact that the extensive novel line (most of which I have never, nor will ever read) is considered canon? While the lore is subjective, the novels are not and quoting them as sources would certainly annoy me. I know the fact that this 'novella canon' kept creeping into the supplements I was buying is what lessened my appeal for the Realms after awhile.
-This is what makes the Forgotten Realms a living setting. It has a timeline that moves forwards as actual years pass. In the past, it was about 1 year in the Forgotten Realms for every 1.5-2 years in real life.
-In the upcoming age where the Forgotten Realms are going to only get 2 sourcebooks, 1 adventure, and however many DDI/DRAGON articles, novels are going to especially important in moving the timeline forward. In 3e, sourcebooks did this, to a degree. There is only so much a sourcebook can do, however. Novels make it much more personable.
The deities themselves are passed over quickly. Only the Greater Gods are discussed at all and even then its barely a mention. The power groups are not well written and no good ones are really discussed at all.
The 3e version was much much more informative and far superior. Plus, it was bigger and had much smaller print
Well, as long as MarkusTay's old ass is still around, that is.
My ass may be old, but it is a wonder to behold. :D
Many a lass has found it quite fetching. :P
Besides, I argue both sides of the debate - both sides have valid points, so I like to repeat those points whenever people loose sight of them.
For anyone to say one side or the other is wrong is just plain ignorant. The problem does NOT stem form the Old setting or the New, or even the Fanbase... it stems from poor decisions made by WotC in presenting the lore to us, and the very bad handling of all the PR this past year.
You know, I see this particular issue come up alot with this setting and I have to wonder: how much of it is really about the amount of lore that's been printed (which you really don't need to play, but is nice to have available) or the fact that the extensive novel line (most of which I have never, nor will ever read) is considered canon? While the lore is subjective, the novels are not and quoting them as sources would certainly annoy me. I know the fact that this 'novella canon' kept creeping into the supplements I was buying is what lessened my appeal for the Realms after awhile.
Preach it, brother. :D
The novels RUINED the REALMS - thats the bottom line, and Stonecold says so.
here's a brief review:Forgetting the changes for a sec, the book itself is poorly done. Some nations get a 2 page write up, but not much info is given. The breakdown of each nation is not done well. Major areas are skipped and the political structure is just touched upon. Many favorites are not discussed at all like Tethyr and Rasheman.
The deities themselves are passed over quickly. Only the Greater Gods are discussed at all and even then its barely a mention. The power groups are not well written and no good ones are really discussed at all.
The 3e version was much much more informative and far superior. Plus, it was bigger and had much smaller print
That's actually a "quality" of 4e Realms. Nothing is fleshed out, the DM makes it up as they go along (a la Indiana Jones) or makes it up before he puts it to play. Even the Core gods have NOTHING on them, just a few sentences of who they are. The Core Bane was so stale and uninformative people on a forum I visit debated if he was REALLY EVIL! He seemed more Unaligned.
The novels RUINED the REALMS - thats the bottom line, and Stonecold says so.
-The novels MADE the REALMS - and if you ain't down with that, we got two words for you...
-I, too, can retort with witty wrestling sayings.
My ass may be old, but it is a wonder to behold. :D
Many a lass has found it quite fetching. :P
Uh…yeah.
I would say shake it for me, but sweet Bejebuz, what horror that may portray.
-This is what makes the Forgotten Realms a living setting. It has a timeline that moves forwards as actual years pass...
...There is only so much a sourcebook can do, however. Novels make it much more personable.
Sorry, but not for me.
Changes are fine and I'm fine with them. My problem is that players never get the opportunity to affect some of this change. In other settings yeah, it's all about the PCs--whether it's handing Lolth's butt back to her (Queen of the Demonweb Pits; Greyhawk), leading a multi-sphere armada against an overwhelming invasion force (Under The Dark Fist; Spelljammer), or being part of a grand scheme that eventually leads to robbing all fiends, everywhere, of their ability to teleport without error (War Games; Planescape)--it's the PCs who are in the forefront.
Where are the Realm's equivalents? The Bloodstone series perhaps, but in the end it's the pregenerated characters that came with the modules that get the credit in the history books. And what else is there, really? The Time of Troubles series? Curse of Azure Bonds? There's an excellent series of adventures based in Kara-Tur, but in the west the best stories go into novels where it's seemingly all about Elminster, or a friend of a friend of a friend of Elminster's.
My feeling is that many of those novels would have made great modules, modules that would have moved the timeline just as well and allowed my players to get into the mix and be part of the story. That, I feel, is a far more personable approach to incorporating a setting into your own campaign than reading about some ionic npc's exploits and then just have that added as canon in the next sourcebook coming down the pike. I'm from the school of thought where npcs are part of the background, holding things together long enough for the PCs get there to deal with the matter. Important flavorwise, yes, but not supplanting my players as the heroes of the world, which is the sense I get nowadays with the setting.
But in the end that's all it really is, my sense, my feeling that the Realms now belongs less to the home campaign and more to the writers churning out the latest line of novels. Others who actually read these books and have endeared themselves to the characters involved, are fine with this. I'm just not. And with the amount of work it would take to edit everything to my liking (which some would suggest, even as others say that said novels make the setting), I could just move onto something else that serves my needs better. Which is ultimately what I did. I dont' want to bash the Realms--it's a good setting, which I've gotten a good number of years of enjoyment from. But it would be great without the marriage between it and the novels, IMHO.
Sorry, but not for me.
-Then it's not for you. It's not for everyone.
Where are the Realm's equivalents?
-In the 3e era, there are these adventures:
Into the Dragon's Lair
Pool of Radiance: Attack on Myth Drannor
Sons of Gruumsh
Cormyr: The Tearing of the Weave
Shadowdale: The Scouring of the Land
Anauroch: The Sundering of the World
Expedition to Undermountain*
*This is billed and designed to be a generic adventure, not in the Forgotten Realms, but that really defies believability, as there are no other Undermountains except for in the Forgotten Realms.
-I have never played any of these adventures, but the Cormyr, Shadoedale and Anauroch modules certainly have their fair share of RSEs that the PCs are a part of.
-Then it's not for you. It's not for everyone.
Thank you...though I'm kind of puzzled as to why you couldn't just accept this as readily with my initial post.
That's actually a "quality" of 4e Realms. Nothing is fleshed out,
still makes for a bad setting book
here's a brief review:Forgetting the changes for a sec, the book itself is poorly done. Some nations get a 2 page write up, but not much info is given. The breakdown of each nation is not done well. Major areas are skipped and the political structure is just touched upon.
This is essentially true. No comparrison can be made between editions here. it's a much lighter piece of lore. The Mini adventure adds to the unfortunate losses.
Many favorites are not discussed at all like Tethyr and Rasheman
Rasheman is covered in the same detail as the rest. And I'm almost certain Tethyr makes it in aswell. I can check shortly once I've posted.
The deities themselves are passed over quickly. Only the Greater Gods are discussed at all and even then its barely a mention.
Unfortunately this isn't true. The setup is identicle to the 3e one. The greaters get the same blurbs, with the rest just making a spreadsheet with name, alignment ETC.
The power groups are not well written and no good ones are really discussed at all.
Not teribly done. They get about the same information given in the back of the FRCS. I prferred that to the CG, but it's not a complete loss
-RW
Rasheman is covered in the same detail as the rest. And I'm almost certain Tethyr makes it in aswell. I can check shortly once I've posted.
Neither one gets a 2 page spread I'm fairly sure
Thank you...though I'm kind of puzzled as to why you couldn't just accept this as readily with my initial post.
-Your post was that the novels were what "killed" the Forgotten Realms. My response was that the novels were what made the Forgotten Realms a living setting, explaining this distinction. You then explained that that sort of thing was not for you, and my response was to say that it's not for everyone.
-A was said, then B was the response, then A(a) was said, and then A(b) was said.
-Your post was that the novels were what "killed" the Forgotten Realms.
In a sense they did...for me. Which is what I actually said and what this whole thread was really about--why some people had problems with the Realms as they were prior to this "reset" (which, I will add, I feel was really done for the benefit for the next batch of novel writeups). Agree/disagree with that sentiment, fine because it's just that--a sentiment. Not a fact, nor anything to be construed as fact which again, I made clear in my followup post. Any attempts to invalidate my feelings toward the subject, or at some misguided attempt to "win me back" to the fold are wasted, as I still feel that way unfortunately. The novels as canon is what soured the Realms for me. Sorry.
You know, I see this particular issue come up alot with this setting and I have to wonder: how much of it is really about the amount of lore that's been printed (which you really don't need to play, but is nice to have available) or the fact that the extensive novel line (most of which I have never, nor will ever read) is considered canon? While the lore is subjective, the novels are not and quoting them as sources would certainly annoy me. I know the fact that this 'novella canon' kept creeping into the supplements I was buying is what lessened my appeal for the Realms after awhile.
I think the novels were just one part of the landslide of information that can make the Realms 'daunting' to newfolk.
Neither one gets a 2 page spread I'm fairly sure
I take that back. They do get 2 pages. I guess I shouldn't have put out my first impressions after just reading thru someone else's book. Sorry
I take that back. They do get 2 pages. I guess I shouldn't have put out my first impressions after just reading thru someone else's book. Sorry
No worries. I haven't read through the whole thing yet myself.
-RW
I take that back. They do get 2 pages. I guess I shouldn't have put out my first impressions after just reading thru someone else's book. Sorry
I am fending off a strong desire to track my copy of the FRCS down to Borders (the only place in my city that seems to do these books) with me and do a page by page comparison of each nation and realm in the new FRCG.
Of course I would likely get kicked out after an hour or so.
Of course I would likely get kicked out after an hour or so.
you might be surprised
I am fending off a strong desire to track my copy of the FRCS down to Borders (the only place in my city that seems to do these books) with me and do a page by page comparison of each nation and realm in the new FRCG.
Of course I would likely get kicked out after an hour or so.
-That's what I am planning to do tomorrow. Get a coffee, sit down, and flip through the book, noting interesting information.
here's a brief review:Forgetting the changes for a sec, the book itself is poorly done. Some nations get a 2 page write up, but not much info is given. The breakdown of each nation is not done well. Major areas are skipped and the political structure is just touched upon. Many favorites are not discussed at all like Tethyr and Rasheman.
Seriously? I'm surprised. I was curious about what happened with Tethyr, especially.
The novels as canon is what soured the Realms for me. Sorry.
I wouldn't mind the novels being canon as much if WotC used a bit more, well, wisdom in the matter. A RSE every now and then is probably acceptable to most people--a whole line of RSEs that trip over each other stretches believablity.