1. I assume most players buy the "FR campaign setting", the "Grand History of the realms" and such. At 1st level they know all about the realms, some more than the DM. There's no mystery. at first level they should only know about their home town or kingdom, and bits of information of the contintent of Faurun.
2. If you run the epic adventures "Cormyr, the tearing of the weave" and the two following epic adventures, If the players have copy of "Grand History of the realms", it tells all about what is going to take place.... again, no mystery.
This is the biggest flaw. Has any DM's had this problem, and if so, how did you handle this influx of information?
As for your first point, that's not a problem if you clearly establish that your FR campaign will weakly/strongly deviate from the FR cannon (it must be stated BEFORE any character is made, doing otherwise is a serious breach of DM responsability). Seccond, it makes a more interesting game. I'm currently DMing two FR campaigns, one with players who don't know much about the setting and other when they do and both are good campaigns that have different approaches to it, in the first I do a more traditional campaign, in the second I throw a lot of curveballs that can happen without violating any piece of FR lore.
or change a bit the stories... so they will get mess up. (ex: cut short the adventure and make it succeeded by another group.)
You're the DM and you must make Discipline.
I had the same problem with some players, and they are no more part of my group because they couldn't de-focus on published material that they're character didn't know. Sad for him, but the others are happy because they're is no more wasting time...
I agree with that. That's why I mentioned that this was a problem with WotC and not inherently of the setting.
You're right, its not the setting, I should have titled that differently, it's the way information is released..... Players should be able to buy any books they want, (Except adventures or modules they are taking part as players)
That was a great thing about boxed sets, they came with a book for players, a book for DMs and maps (I love maps but I suck at making them).
Pathfinder does that - the player's Guides are all free downloads. :D
I am blessed to have a group that has NO knowledge of the Realms - they haven't even cracked open a novel or played a VG.
Bless their little hearts.
At one time, a project was discussed over at CK, where people would come up with pamphlets for each region - that would be ALL your players know. Ideally, a DM would just hand these out, and the players would never touch any of the setting books.
This is similar to what Paizo has done with their Player's guides... they even include local regional Feats and players maps
CK seems to have lost interest in that project (along with most everything else), but given the Pathfinder format, maybe I can re-start some Buzz to create FR versions of these.
We shall see...
Downside is, of course, that you will have to do a wee bit of conversion work, unless you are cunning and all ...
I don't know how many DM's have had this problem, but these are some of the flaws I have come across with forgotten realms:
1. I assume most players buy the "FR campaign setting", the "Grand History of the realms" and such. At 1st level they know all about the realms, some more than the DM. There's no mystery. at first level they should only know about their home town or kingdom, and bits of information of the contintent of Faurun.
2. If you run the epic adventures "Cormyr, the tearing of the weave" and the two following epic adventures, If the players have copy of "Grand History of the realms", it tells all about what is going to take place.... again, no mystery.
This is the biggest flaw. Has any DM's had this problem, and if so, how did you handle this influx of information?
The problem you cite would most likely be a problem with any detailed setting that isn't homebrewed, not just the FR setting.
The last two campaigns, I have made 100 years or more in the future to avoid this problem, this last one however, I made in 1374 DR to use the 3 epic adventures "Cormyr, tearing of the weave", "Shadowdale", and "Anauroch". I have "Grand History of the realms", and was reading that time line, 1374 DR, and noticed it told all about the adventures, and my player, who has the grand history of the realms, I assume will, or has already read about it also.... I mean it's not the players fault for reading a book that Exists, it's just that WotC should not have put that future time line section in there in my opinion.
Ideally, I would say it is better to toss your campaigns into the past, rather than the future. It's always easier to explain "that hasn't happened yet" as oppossed to "that never happened." Especially when your players are more read up on the current materials than you are.
Granted, you shouldn't have to explain any way, but if you are trying to avoid a conflict in views, throw it all back to where FR was basically static.
I don’t think most starting players by the Grand History of the Realms. But if even one in four players in a group has it, that’s still not necessarily a bad thing. On the contrary, I think a book like the GHotR only wets player’s appetites for the setting.
That’s not to say it’s OK for the player to ‘read ahead’, mind.
But what’s a Realms DM to do when he or she wants to run Cormyr: Tearing of the Weave, but the players do know what’s coming in the future.
As a very experienced Realms DM who has four smart, in-the-know-the-setting players, the way I deal with their player knowledge is this:
1) My Forgotten Realms game is more important than what’s going on in the published setting.
2) I don’t have much respect for players who read ahead on adventures.
3) The sense of discover and play-value of the three adventures aren’t diminished by knowing what will happen to the setting ten years of down the road.
4) Players need to be told to keep their player knowledge and their character knowledge separate at the table.
I have not had to run a game yet with a FR lore junkie so I am pretty lucky. All my players buy a book or two that will help them flesh out their characters. If their pc is not from the south then they won't touch that supplement. It allows me greater room to run things my way. With the new 3 book policy coming out they all will be pleased I guess. I don't think any of them will get the DDI so I will hopefully be able to keep them in the dark a little about the setting. Most of my players are very familair with Deadlands and whenever we play a game there we never have a problem if the GM changes a few things so even if they all become FR fiends I am sure I will survive.
Rino's point sounds good to me. If GH had gotten the love and spotlight, and fanfare that FR did it would have the same problems.
I have not had to run a game yet with a FR lore junkie so I am pretty lucky.
You don't need a lore junkie to get a problem, but FR does have the unique position of having a ton of novels and canon out there.
If you create your own adventures you should have no problem at all. Its a big playground to play in
bUt otherwise, like it has been mentioned, this is a problem that any published setting might have.
99% of the time, I make up my own adventures, then when I decide to buy these adventures, the plot and story line is published in an accessory book, that my player has, and has already read, not knowing about these upcoming adventures..... It kind'a takes something away when you have to say, "Pretend you know nothing". Half the point of playing is the mystery and discovery (At least in my campaign).
In my opinion, WotC should have put that information at the end of the adventure "Anaurach: empire of the shade" instead of an accessory book that players usaully buy.... Its like printing cheat sheets for characters in a way.
I guess It's back to making up adventures.....
It's not so much the FR campaign setting, its the 3 super adventures as they call them, Cormyr, shadowdale and Anauroch. Then I learn that the plot and entire summary of the adeventures are described in "The grand history of the realms" pages 156-158 WTF?
99% of the time, I make up my own adventures, then when I decide to buy these adventures, the plot and story line is published in an accessory book, that my player has, and has already read, not knowing about these upcoming adventures..... It kind'a takes something away when you have to say, "Pretend you know nothing". Half the point of playing is the mystery and discovery (At least in my campaign).
In my opinion, WotC should have put that information at the end of the adventure "Anaurach: empire of the shade" instead of an accessory book that players usaully buy.... Its like printing cheat sheets for characters in a way.
I guess It's back to making up adventures.....
Seems to be the major complaint of the adventures, asides for a few moments that leave you going, "Huh!? How can that even happen!? Why is that even included!?"
Seems to be the major complaint of the adventures, asides for a few moments that leave you going, "Huh!? How can that even happen!? Why is that even included!?"
-Indeed.
-I believe it was the last of the three...Seemed a little over ambitious. Shades, Myth Drannor, Nether Scrolls, Sarrukh (I believe), the Sharn Wall...
-Indeed.
-I believe it was the last of the three...Seemed a little over ambitious. Shades, Myth Drannor, Nether Scrolls, Sarrukh (I believe), the Sharn Wall...
Yeag. I didn't even bother looking at it
Simple... punish your players that rely on those outside they're Character informations.
or change a bit the stories... so they will get mess up. (ex: cut short the adventure and make it succeeded by another group.)
You're the DM and you must make Discipline.
I had the same problem with some players, and they are no more part of my group because they couldn't de-focus on published material that they're character didn't know. Sad for him, but the others are happy because they're is no more wasting time...
Yup. I told my players at the beginning of my current FR campaign, "Any OOC knowledge or slip of the tongue stuff, and they immediately loose 1,000 xp per current character level, effects being immediate,".
Amazing at how well that works.
-I believe it was the last of the three...Seemed a little over ambitious. Shades, Myth Drannor, Nether Scrolls, Sarrukh (I believe), the Sharn Wall...
From what I hear, the Shadowdale module was like that too--jam-packing in a plethora of enemies (some of them ghosts from Shadowdale's past, so to speak) and plot points that probably didn't need to be there.
From what I hear, the Shadowdale module was like that too--jam-packing in a plethora of enemies (some of them ghosts from Shadowdale's past, so to speak) and plot points that probably didn't need to be there.
-It could be all of them that are like that. I just know more about the Anauroch one than the other two.
Oh, I wanted to mention some adjustments I'm making to my campaign. They can be sough here- http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1037563
(basically some adjustments to the Cleric, Sorcerer, and Wizard plus some familiar adjustments)
I've read the 1st part of the adventure and it seems pretty solid, but i did notice NO arcane spellcasters had ANY familars when they probably should've. Oh well, I figued i'd be changing some things anyways.......
-I can't remember that last time I played a character who could summon a familiar that actually did. I hate familiars...
Cormyr wasn't bad, in all honesty. It's a little zany in one of the locations per level of characters to some, but it's a solid adventure.
I've heard much the same--it was a solid, unremarkable adventure that wasn't even particularly evocative of Cormyr.
-I can't remember that last time I played a character who could summon a familiar that actually did. I hate familiars...
I like the idea behind them, but I think having a familiar usually gets old, fast.
General:I don´t think WotC actually screwed up this time, if they are trying to sell me GhotR (a book I bought mainly bechause of the way it came into beeing) I happen to expect the complete history. I really liked that they put what happened in the war of the spiderqueen books into the players guide and I hope they will continue this treatment. When it comes to runining aventures, yes it can suck and in this special case the plot will be quite obvious to the other player - that does not mean that he can´t enjoy the adventures (as long as he can keep his mouth shut) sometimes not knowing is all the fun - but this time maybe knowing can be fun too.
Now I have to admid I started to DM Cormyr and it was fun for the players but that group of people shattered so I wont likely complete it ever. I now know what would happen to Mystra later and the fact that IMO it is less likely to happen if the players die in the adventure, well not a great feeling.
But hey once the new FRCS comes out it´s clean slate again (but that could have been acomplished with a 10 year jump) I am sorry for the OP but his players mght just as well have been spoilered about the adventure on the internet - but if he willing to change some things in the adventure add some twists and play with the out of character knowledge of his players he may still have fun with his group playing the megaadventures.
I like the idea behind them, but I think having a familiar usually gets old, fast.
-I, personally, find them more of a burden than anything. Great...I have a +2 to Spot, but I need to lug around a Great Heron. Is it really worth it?
-Maybe Crazy Ali will summon a familiar. I'm not sure off-hand if his class can. A Calashite Chameleon...:D
-I, personally, find them more of a burden than anything. Great...I have a +2 to Spot, but I need to lug around a Great Heron. Is it really worth it?
A great heron, LOL.
-Maybe Crazy Ali will summon a familiar. I'm not sure off-hand if his class can. A Calashite Chameleon...:D
Well, that'd be cute.
Well, that'd be cute.
-Just, as an update, I can't without taking a feat, and a chameleon familiar really isn't all that good.
Besides, if Ali has a familiar, it should be as crazy as he is. He should have a Hyena.
The Obtain Familiar feat is better than having it as a class feature.
-There's so many other feats that are more useful, for that precious 6th Level Feat.
Besides, if Ali has a familiar, it should be as crazy as he is. He should have a Hyena.
-Nah...As I said, I don't necessarily see the utility in "[lugging] around a Great Heron".
Well, personally I think that as long as a player keeps personal knowledge and character knowledge separate at the gaming table this "problem" can actually end up giving you campaign a sort of dramatic irony, as you know many things that your character dosen't and you feign ignorance and anticipate something familiar to you personally to appear.
-That's the rub. Some people just can't keep their mouths shut, though.
-
-That's the rub. Some people just can't keep their mouths shut, though.
That's when you give them the polite warning followed by the boot if they don't shut their traps.;)
That's when you give them the polite warning followed by the boot if they don't shut their traps.;)
-And, the same people often don't get the hint.
-And, the same people often don't get the hint.
Well, like I said, that's when you kick them out.
-I, personally, find them more of a burden than anything. Great...I have a +2 to Spot, but I need to lug around a Great Heron. Is it really worth it?
The Obtain Familiar feat is better than having it as a class feature.
I like the idea behind them, but I think having a familiar usually gets old, fast.
Sheesh, did no one look at my changes to familiars? IMO their easier use, you don't take severe penalities if they die, if they die you can bring them back with a small amount of gold and a summoning ritual, they increase in power as you gain spell-casting levels AND you can get better ones at higher levels like a Druid can swap out her animal companions. At least I think they're better rules
-There's so many other feats that are more useful, for that precious 6th Level Feat.
Do it for RP! Stop metagaming!;p
Sheesh, did no one look at my changes to familiars?
-No.
Do it for RP! Stop metagaming!;p
-I am doing it for RP purposes.
Do it for RP! Stop metagaming!;p
He might be RPing a munchkin?
Whatever, this is 4e, its ok to treat it as an MMO.
-No.
Oh, well.....then i guess...................*sigh* nevermind
Oh, well.....then i guess...................*sigh* nevermind
-Alright, alright...Maybe a few people did.
Sheesh, did no one look at my changes to familiars?
Sure. I did:D
Sheesh, did no one look at my changes to familiars? IMO their easier use, you don't take severe penalities if they die, if they die you can bring them back with a small amount of gold and a summoning ritual, they increase in power as you gain spell-casting levels AND you can get better ones at higher levels like a Druid can swap out her animal companions. At least I think they're better rules
:embarrass Sorry, I may have missed them. Also, my eyes tend to glaze over when looking at rules.
On that note, I do feel familiars could have used a bit of a redisgn. Class features that are set up with such punishing consequences are not a good thing in my opinion. If familiars could be summoned and banished in a similar way to the 3.5 paladin warhorse that would have been interesting. As mostly a vanity piece of IC fluff, familiars in games I run and most I have played in tend to stay in the background. If a player brings them out for combat advantage then the risk will come into play but mostly its a personality thing.
Also, for those who dislike familiars the "Staff familiar" variant from Dragon Magazine is actually really fun. I don't remember which one though. Something in the 330's or 340's I think.
:embarrass Sorry, I may have missed them. Also, my eyes tend to glaze over when looking at rules.
The changes I made to my game were:
Familiars gain power equal to their master's caster level rather than wiz/sor level. If a familiar dies, their casters gain a -1 penalty to their caster level for all various level effects rather than losing XP. A caster can re-summon a familiar with a 1 hour ritual involving 50 gp worth of material. When a wizard gains levels in power, he/she has the option to summon a bigger familiar with less power in much of the same ways as a Druid's animial companion. Though this feature basically negates the Improved Familiar feat (which I never thought was good anyways).
Don't much care for D&D's familiars in any edition really... much preferred M:tA's version of them from Ascension's Right Hand. Felt like you could customize them a bit more than the standard d20 versions. To each their own though I guess.
-How did things differ?
WoD allows more of a point-build system (standard WoD character gen really), with various powers costing certain amounts of points, which could be improved with experience, even to the point of buying new powers or abilities entirely. You could build a very mystical familiar, or a really combat oriented one, or pretty much any concept for it you liked, which you could tailor as you both advanced in ability. Sounds a bit munchkin-like, and it could be to be sure, but I found Storyteller much more a series of trade-offs than optimizing. Same went with standard characters really. Was a good system, but the handfuls of dice got old eventually, and the allure of rolling just one most of the time became overwhelming.
-Like I said, though, I'll probably go down the route of simply buying an animal, and possibly training it. A chameleon, though, definitely. Maybe an iguana, I don't know.
One thing I didn't mention with WoD though was that it was basically a spirit given a mortal shell to inhabit, rather than a normal animal you did some mystical bonding with. Familiars in WoD definitely could have minds of their own, and even betray their masters if mistreated. Added an interesting level of complexity to the relationship I found.
It was... just not interesting enough compared to 3e. Though I did like the take on familiars from the example tower thingy from Tome and Blood, where the apprentice went to the market and bought his critter in preparation for bonding with it...
One thing I didn't mention with WoD though was that it was basically a spirit given a mortal shell to inhabit, rather than a normal animal you did some mystical bonding with. Familiars in WoD definitely could have minds of their own, and even betray their masters if mistreated. Added an interesting level of complexity to the relationship I found.
They could even become an inverted merit, called Gremlin.
One thing I didn't mention with WoD though was that it was basically a spirit given a mortal shell to inhabit, rather than a normal animal you did some mystical bonding with. Familiars in WoD definitely could have minds of their own, and even betray their masters if mistreated. Added an interesting level of complexity to the relationship I found.
-That's how I've always seen familiars. Not as simple animals (or other things) that you bond with, and have limited control over, but "kindred souls", creatures that share a part of your soul as you share theirs.
But I've always preferred the concepts and conventions behind the oWoD, even if the execution was at times lacking.
But I've always preferred the concepts and conventions behind the oWoD, even if the execution was at times lacking.
For some things. But for me, who loves to learn about the different magic beliefs and systems of our world the nWoD mage gives me a better background.
I would love something like that for FR.
WoD allows more of a point-build system (standard WoD character gen really), with various powers costing certain amounts of points, which could be improved with experience, even to the point of buying new powers or abilities entirely. You could build a very mystical familiar, or a really combat oriented one, or pretty much any concept for it you liked, which you could tailor as you both advanced in ability. Sounds a bit munchkin-like, and it could be to be sure, but I found Storyteller much more a series of trade-offs than optimizing. Same went with standard characters really. Was a good system, but the handfuls of dice got old eventually, and the allure of rolling just one most of the time became overwhelming.
One thing I didn't mention with WoD though was that it was basically a spirit given a mortal shell to inhabit, rather than a normal animal you did some mystical bonding with. Familiars in WoD definitely could have minds of their own, and even betray their masters if mistreated. Added an interesting level of complexity to the relationship I found.
I really need to look into this more - it sounds EXACTLY like the familiar rules I've been envisioning, wherein you bind a 'familiar spirit' into a normal creature, and the thing levels up in whatever category you summoned it from (Fiendish, Celestial, Elemental, Shadow, ect...).
So you start off with a smart animal, and for each spell level you obtain after the first, the creatures also gains a level (becoming a type I demon, then a Type II, then a Type III etc, etc..). Even though it is exrtra-planar in nature, it can still take its original shape (that of the animal it inhabits, alongside it's 'true' form).
That eliviates the need for the 'Improved Familiar' Feat. Your animal gradually becomes the better versions over time. Also, some classes, like Witches, can have multiple familiars - they get a new one for each level they obtain (the old one moving up a notch, and the new one taking it's place power-wise).
What game system is WoD again? Isn't that White Wolf?
BTW, there is a PM getting dust in your Vault account.
The changes I made to my game were:
Familiars gain power equal to their master's caster level rather than wiz/sor level. If a familiar dies, their casters gain a -1 penalty to their caster level for all various level effects rather than losing XP. A caster can re-summon a familiar with a 1 hour ritual involving 50 gp worth of material. When a wizard gains levels in power, he/she has the option to summon a bigger familiar with less power in much of the same ways as a Druid's animial companion. Though this feature basically negates the Improved Familiar feat (which I never thought was good anyways).
Hmm, that all sounds like an improvement.