I have grown rather irritated by the tedious, repetitive, and illogical claims that Shar, or equally narrowly focused but powerful NPC groups such as the Princes of Shade, are somehow an impediment for every DM to deal with, and with the equally tedious, repetitive, and illogical idea-threads for removing, slaying, or neutralizing them simply to address the non-issue of their potential disruption of the campaign and/or setting. Therefore, rather than dealing with them individually, I will simply put an end to the fallacy here.
According to the 3rd Edition Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, the population of Faerûn consists of 68,000,000 inhabitants. Therefore, in an average Forgotten Realms campaign consisting of four players, there are a minimum number of 67,999,996 corresponding NPCs. According to the 3rd Edition Dungeon Master's Guide, 50% of all randomly generated NPCs will be of a chaotic good, neutral good, lawful good, chaotic neutral, neutral, or lawful neutral alignment. The other 50% would be of chaotic evil, neutral evil or lawful evil alignment. These numbers might be a bit off in 4th Edition, but it is safe to assume that the bulk of NPC's are now going to be unaligned. There also might be fewer living NPC's in the 4th Edition Realms. So if we now assume that the population of Faerûn is cut in half, this gives us 34,000,000. If we then assume that the bulk of the population, say 50% are unaligned, this gives us 17,000,000 who are either of a good or evil alignment. That in turn means that on average there are 8,500,000 potential evil aligned NPC villains for a good or unaligned party to slay, thwart, or capture; or alternatively for the PCs to be slain, be thwarted, or be captured by.
By contrast, there are only two places where Shar is even worshiped openly, that being the Empire of Netheril and its puppet state of Sembia. It is safe to assume that the worship of Shar in both places is not strong, as even the Princes of Shade themselves clearly display a Netheril first point of view, and often chafe under the wishes of Shar. It should be safe to assume that the bulk of the population only gives lip service because it is necessary. However, the point is that there are only two areas where she is openly worshiped.
Therefore, it is statistically illogical for the Player Characters ever to randomly encounter, either as friend or foe, a true Sharran, but it decreases even further if you avoid those two regions. Likewise it is supremely illogical for a Sharran to act as an automatic impediment, plot-foil, spotlight thief, or as the only evil force in existence in the Realms.
Even if every living Sharran suddenly and illogically chose to drop everything at hand and devote ALL their efforts to tracking down, ambushing, and neutralizing 20 random good aligned NPC's or PC's per day, every day - be it a pitiful 1st level commoner or a 30th level PC who has just achieved his epic destiny - it would take them 1,164 years to kill every good aligned being in Faerûn who had been in existence at the time they began such an endeavor. Incidentally, in a fraction of that time frame the entire population of good aligned beings in Faerûn would have been replaced as more beings are born (whose alignments will be just as random as those who had birthed them), and in turn gain experience and power over the years, and fill the vacant roles of benevolent king, heroic crusader against evil, noble and gentle-hearted paladin, pious and kind priest, or any of a dozen fantasy campaign heroic clichés. It also does not include all of the unaligned, and yes even evil aligned individuals who would directly work against them and their efforts.
All of this of course is ignoring the rather obvious fact that every Sharran that would ever pose a threat to the PC's have an infinite number of other things that aught to be occupying their time, apart from single-handedly "ruining" a campaign before it begins; such as ruling an Nation, and/or heading their churches, and/or instructing new apprentices, and/or dealing with their numerous enemies, and/or pursuing the goals of their patron Goddess, and/or dealing with their own agendas, foes, and goals (as opposed to the agendas, foes, and goals of the PCs). That doesn't include the rather time consuming and simplified daily agenda that comes with being outright dead, killed by other evil aligned individuals who oppose Shar and her goals, effectively making the need for good to battle Shar irrelevant. (Most evil villains tend to be opposed to evil deities who want to end all existence. It typically goes counter to their own goals, just ask the Princes of Shade who seem to struggle with this.)
Apparently it is too much to ask for the endless throngs of Shar-haters to actually read the Forgotten Realm's Campaign Guide or exercise common sense. Instead we on these boards and other avenues of realms discussion endure an endless stream of player/DM contrived scenarios or problems where Shar and her followers can easily be explained out of the story, out of the campaign, or simply killed off altogether, when not one of these things is ever really necessary or rationally needed in dealing with the phantom "problem" of Shar and her followers existence.
If you are a DM and Sharran's are a "problem" in your campaign, either as a potential insurmountable adversaries for your good player characters, or as potential plot-foil and/or spotlight thief for your evil player characters, then you only have yourself to blame, because common sense and demographics of the Forgotten Realms ensure that they reliably won't be.
If you are a player, and Sharran's are a "problem" in your campaign, either as potential insurmountable adversaries for your good characters, or as potential plot-foil and/or spotlight thief for your evil characters, then you need to find a DM who has read the books necessary for running a campaign in the Forgotten Realms, and/or a DM who doesn't have a fixation for using Sharrans, and/or a DM who understands that events such as the death of Mystra and the Spellplague, or other massive realms-shaking events, are in no way representative of consistent daily life in Faerûn (for adventurers or otherwise).
Lastly, if you are a novel reader, and Shar and her followers are seen as a "problem" in your ability to enjoy reading the books, then a simple suggestion would be to exercise the minimal amount of common sense to not purchase novels that obviously will contain Shar and her followers. I know it is rather audacious to show Sharran's as (gasp) competent individuals, and Shar, as one of the oldest and most powerful deities in the entire setting, (double-gasp) actually succeeding in her endeavors.
Shar and her worshipers, or arguably any other organization or group, are not a problem or impediment for enjoying the Forgotten Realms. By contrast, it would be players, DMs, and readers who cannot understand simple D&D demographics, and/or who do not read the campaign guide, and/or fail to exercise basic common sense, who then in turn contrive the false idea that any ability to enjoy a campaign in Faerûn must invariably mean the ad-hoc mass-elimination or mass-omission of a mere handful of NPC's, amidst the massive pool of 34,000,000 (or more) others.
-That said, like Mystra, I do not enjoy Shar as much as I once did because of her proliferation across the setting in the recent years, and the relative importance placed upon her, as opposed to others.
But I cannot for the life of me follow the logic of your math.
And Math was my best subject...
I'm pretty sure that it's for just Faerun itself.
Lord Karsus-
I wish you hadn't revealed that yet. You spoiled it.
I am still waiting for someone who posted in that thread to post a lengthy anti-Shar rant here so I could link back to their post in that thread.
That was one of the major reasons I created this thread: to expose hypocrisy. Then to draw into the open the true problem plaguing the Realms (because the facts here in this thread and the one made by the Simbul cannot be ignored), which is one of perception.
MarkusTay63-
I don't know if the math is right. I mostly suck at math, so it might be wrong, but I took all the base numbers from the Simbul's thread. The only thing I really changed was a few nouns, adjectives and a few lines of text since we are talking about 4th Edition instead of 3rd Edition. I tried to keep it as EXACT as I possibly could, without distorting the context of anything.
That's where you lost me. You split the NPCs into THREE groups, when the first two add up to 100%... which precludes a third group from existing.
I just couldn't get past that... unless you were saying all those alignments fall under the over-heading of 'unaligned', in which case I am REALLLY confused by 4e rules.
I wish you hadn't revealed that yet. You spoiled it.
-Whoops. Oh well.
I am still waiting for someone who posted in that thread to post a lengthy anti-Shar rant here so I could link back to their post in that thread.
That was one of the major reasons I created this thread: to expose hypocrisy. Then to draw into the open the true problem plaguing the Realms (because the facts here in this thread and the one made by the Simbul cannot be ignored), which is one of perception.
-It is likely that most people are not going to produce similar complaints, as the problems with Mystra's prevalence and the problems with Shar's prevalence are/were two separate problems/issues, with different reasonings.
-It is likely that most people are not going to produce similar complaints, as the problems with Mystra's prevalence and the problems with Shar's prevalence are/were two separate problems/issues, with different reasonings.
Yeah, I was about to say the same thing.
And I also clearly remembered that thread from the Simbul.
:P @ Meldread
as mystra and her chosen were in 2nd through third.
opens ups gripes doesnt it.
Well, I was reading it (because it did indeed sound interesting), but then you lost me when you had the first two groups at 50%, and then added the third group, saying "These numbers might be a bit off in 4th Edition, but it is safe to assume that the bulk of NPC's are now going to be unaligned. There also might be fewer living NPC's in the 4th Edition Realms."
That's where you lost me. You split the NPCs into THREE groups, when the first two add up to 100%... which precludes a third group from existing.
I just couldn't get past that... unless you were saying all those alignments fall under the over-heading of 'unaligned', in which case I am REALLLY confused by 4e rules.
I might have gotten confused with the numbers. Like I said I was trying -very- hard to stick to everything the Simbul wrote.
These are her numbers:
According to the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, the population of Faerûn consists 68,000,000 inhabitants. Therefore, in an average Forgotten Realms campaign consisting of four players, there are a minimum number of 67,999,996 corresponding NPCs. According to the Dungeon Master's Guide, 50% of all randomly generated NPCs will be of a chaotic evil, neutral evil, or lawful evil alignment. That in turn means that on average there are 33,999,998 potential NPC villains for a good or neutral oriented party to slay, thwart, or capture; or alternatively for the PCs to be slain, be thwarted, or be captured by.
I don't report to be a math wiz, so... All I did was slice the number of people in Faerun in half, and since alignment functions differently, and many things that once were evil now seem to be unaligned, I went with that. Instead of 50% of all randomly generated NPC's being of an evil alignment, I said that they are of an unaligned alignment. This leaves the other 50% of either good or evil alignment (25% each).
So yeah... whatever. :P
I'm pretty sure her numbers for 3rd Edition total Faerun population is accurate, but I didn't actually go and verify it.
But yes, some things that were once evil are now unaligned and some things that were once good are now unaligned, and everything that was once neutral is now unaligned... they changed the way alignment works. And since I have my own take on alignment, I don't really care or bother with what WotC thinks. :P
-It is likely that most people are not going to produce similar complaints, as the problems with Mystra's prevalence and the problems with Shar's prevalence are/were two separate problems/issues, with different reasonings.
I had something longer posted here, but I edited it out. Rather than explain my reasoning, I'd encourage you to explain to me in all the ways the two situations are different, and then explain to me in how they are the same. I'd be interested in seeing how you could come to a different conclusion, because it is pretty cut and dry in my opinion.
I initially wondered why you were so passionate as to post a "thousand word essay" on the subject. Having explained your sneaky, true motive, I now understand.
As to their problems, well, I never saw Mystra as a problem, unless you counted the novels and stories, which I don't. With Shar... well, her involvement in everything wrong in the world, the root of all evil, at the expense of considerably more interesting deities, with a possible hint of misogyny in her relationship with Cyric, Mask, and possibly Mystra if we get psycho-babbled about it... it just adds up to a goddess that doesn't really match her portfolio that well. Maybe if they added in Freudian Psychodrama to her portfolio it might work better... but again, its not really the previous game lore that creates the problems, so much as writers coming in with radically different takes on established deities and creating a sense of disconnect. While reinvention can be a good thing in some cases, I think it works best when done in a seperate continuity, rather than creating rippling shockwaves of retcons and contradictions.
I agree that there is a big disconnect between how various characters and deities are explained compared to how they are portrayed. It's the reason, for example, that I can like Elminster in theory, but then as I move away from concept to implementation I came to dislike him.
I kinda chuckled slightly when you said that you never saw Mystra as a problem, but never counted the novels and stories. The Mystra / Shar problem are two sides of the same coin.
The root of the problem, and I actually owe my understanding of this to the Simbul for her thread, is not in the characters themselves, but rather the perceptions that they have developed around them over time.
For example, Shar is not -really- the root of all evil, or involved in everything wrong in the world. It is simply impossible. The world is too big. Faerûn is too big. Yet, it seems that way because we're looking at the Realms through a window opened up by WotC and the various novel authors. They're showing us areas and events that involve Shar, and thus we develop the perception that she is somehow the root of all evil, or involved in everything wrong in the world.
If you step away from the events surrounding Netheril and Sembia, and scale back to view the setting as a whole, in its entirety, it's easy to see that Shar's hand prints are in a very focused area.
The same is true for the Chosen and Mystra. Mystra -seemed- to be the well from which all goodness and things heroic sprang. She completely booted other good aligned deities out of the picture, poor Selune got completely ignored as Mystra took the role of arch-nemesis to Shar. Ilmater and Torm got little mention - along with hordes of other great deities. Does that mean those deities were inactive during this time, doing nothing? No, they were active we just didn't see anything they did from the small window into the Realms we were permitted to look through.
Likewise, the same is true for Shar.
Although, I also agree with you that WotC has completely screwed over Shar's character. Being a deity of secrets and darkness, goes somewhat counter to Netheril.
It is kinda like what happened to the Harpers. They started out as a secret organization, then over time, they suddenly were not-so-secret anymore, everyone and their uncle was a Harper.
Had those events only happened in novels, without affecting the sourcebooks, I wouldn't really care much... but they did affect the sourcebooks, and coloured pretty much everything during the mid-to-late 3e period, and all of 4e so far. A definite reason for me to want to see novels divorced from canon... which I'm realistic enough to know is never going to happen, but still, it creates impressions of the setting that aren't necessarilly supported by what the sourcebooks tell us. Honestly, I'm not optimistic about the same thing happening all over again, where the metaplot begins to overshadow everything the players are doing, at least in their minds, and putting us back into the same place that 3e left us in.
What I think is important to realize is that the events of the Spellplague only came about due to the edition change and the wish of WotC and the novel authors to shake-up the setting. It could have easily been another deity, or a non-deity related event. So I think it is a bit unbalanced to take a single event involving Shar and hinge the debate over the entire character over it. It is too narrow.
However, on that point I again think it is a matter of perception. Imagine a world in which the Chosen of Mystra never existed and it is clear to see the type of influence they had on the setting. It is not so much what they did, but what they prevented from happening. Just as an example, the Simbul was often portrayed as being the single reason Thay simply did not march in and take over Aglarond.
In 4th Edition, if you want to avoid Sharrans, you need to avoid Sembia and Netheril. In 3rd Edition, if you wanted to avoid Mystra and the Chosen, you had to avoid Silverymoon, Waterdeep, the Dalelands, Aglarond and to a lesser extent Cormyr. These are all areas that they hold direct interest in and influence heavily. The primary difference between the two is that Netheril is more in your face, whereas the Chosen were more subtle using groups such as the Harpers to forward their goals and manipulate events.
Of course, at the same time, it is pretty clear that the Netherese somewhat chafe under Shar, and really the Empire stands first and foremost in their mind, with the goals of Shar being second. None seem to really like the idea of Shar's end goals. I think it is more like a deal they made with a devil, and now find it difficult to escape the hold she has on them. This was more understandable in 3rd Edition with the Shadow Weave, less so in 4th Edition.
Mystra never really had that issue, all of the Chosen pretty much believed in her goals and objectives wholeheartedly, and worked toward them tirelessly, on their own initiative, for the most part.
However, setting all that aside, the true benefit of 4th Edition in my eyes is that it does somewhat free us from the novels. Since they do not plan to create more source books, this leaves us with what we have. There is an outline of a world, with tons of history behind it. A one hundred year time jump and a massive event.
The Spellplague and the time jump pretty much ensures that whatever you do not like, you have the ability to clean up or knock out. Don't like Netheril? That's fine, you have 100 years to explain what happened to them and what, if anything, replaced them.
That would pretty much solve your Shar problem right there, and it is both simple and easy to do.
Whereas, if you wanted to do something comparable in 3rd Edition, say wanting to write out / kill off the Chosen, you'd run into all sorts of annoying issues. Overall, 4th Edition was designed with both modularity and customization in mind. This is not good for lore lovers, but for the purposes of creating a D&D game I do believe it strikes a very good balance for DM's and their groups.
If Shar and her followers are a "problem" for your Forgotten Realms then I would suggest you need to find a Dungeon Master who has read the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide
Actually, I find she's only a problem in that in some plots, it's actually kinda hard to think of why she wouldn't want to be involved. She's pretty powerful and would definitely have interests in helping along certain people, especially as she has the ability to affect things seemingly across faerun.
It's more "do I have a reason not to involve her in X plot" due to her prevalence, servants and power level in the realms currently moreso than anything else. This only occupies me for the first ~10 page or so basic story outline document I do. Once I have the story of the campaign (roughly) and then what players will be doing/encountering at heroic/paragon/epic level I just ignore it after that.
People who read the novels though are probably completely boned.
Which is ridiculous... neither argument is 'correct' (which was the point of the counter-argument). An NPC, group of NPCs, or even a god, only becomes a problem in someone's game if they let it become one.
So yeah... saying Shar is too 'Uber' in 4e sounds stupid... it's supposed to. ;)
What I think is important to realize is that the events of the Spellplague only came about due to the edition change and the wish of WotC and the novel authors to shake-up the setting.
That's rather my point actually... this isn't a problem for someone at home, where things are easily ignored, but it doesn't bode well that the setting was changed so dramatically with the often loathed method of yet another RSE... we're already seeing novels pumping out covering the events, which were supposedly going to be kept to an absolute minimum, if done at all...
See, to my mind, there are two distinct versions of the Forgotten Realms in existance. The one that exists in the sourcebooks, and the one presented in the novels... and its generally the novel version that causes the most vexation, since it tends to be the most visible. While this is good for the setting in terms of attracting new fans, its bad for the setting in that some of the authors inject ideas and concepts that have virtually no foundation in the previous sourcebooks, and so it creates a broad disconnect between the two.
My biggest problem is that you have relatively brief overviews of NPCs in sourcebooks, snapshots if you will, that give us an idea of the NPC, and leaves a lot open to individual interpretation for each DM that decides to use them. Novels don't give us that luxury, characterizing those NPCs in specific ways that don't always mesh well with the snapshots given to us in the sourcebooks, and a lot of times either making or breaking NPCs reputation according to how we view the author's take. I'd much rather they left those iconics alone, so we could form our own views of them, rather than opening them up into that ever-escalating soap opera syndrome that seems to have plagued so many of them, mortal and divine, of late...
My problem isn't with Shar per se, but with how she's been presented and used from 3e on. It just doesn't mesh with her 2e incarnation all that well, and leaves a very bitter taste in the mouth, at least for me.
---------
As an addendum to that, looking over the whole of your post up there, I can't say I ever felt constrained about telling a story in Shadowdale, Waterdeep, Aglarond, Silverymoon, or Cormyr because of the Chosen or Mystra. Honestly, I don't even see why it would be an issue. Maybe if you're running epic stories that threaten the entire realm, with the fate of everything in the PCs hands, then I could perhaps see it. But really, I don't see those sorts of stories coming up all that often... how often can you really run those before the duldrums of yet-another-end-of-the-world situation comes up and is met with a yawn by the PCs. Run them too often, and it raises the question of just how these places survived long enough for you to get born.
I can't wait to see the response to this thread. :P
Recycling the Simbul's argument doesn't make you clever, it just means you've plagiarized/adapted something that was clever and indicates that you think the Shar/Netherese problem is similar to the supposed Mystra/Chosen problem - and it isn't.
Here's why:
1. WotC is continuing to use Shar and other deities as NPCs in novels, after they basically bought into the fallacious "Mystra is a problem and needs to be fixed" argument. Gods should be gods, distant and inscrutable, not how they've been portrayed since the ToT. Continuing to use gods as NPCs not only encourages their use by other players in home games, it is hypocritical on the part of WotC. Not to mention the equally big issue of having yet another gigantic RSE...
2. Mystra and the Chosen were "heroes" (as used by WotC in novels, etc.) and on the "good" side; as such, they can be easily and completely ignored all the time. Shar and the Netherese are evil, and can only be ignored at the expense of leaving out major portions of the 4E gaming experience. Like never having the PCs fight Sharrans or the Netherese generally. They also cannot be ignored in terms of the overriding effect that they've had on the lore, including their not-so-subtle influence on Sembia and all of the surrounding regions. Yeah, you can ignore them, but at a huge cost: leaving out many potential adventuring options.
3. The problem with Mystra and her chosen was always one of individual perception rather than reality; you could leave them out by personal choice. In 4E, elevating Shar and the Netherese was a formal decision that affected the entire feel and tone of the Realms; you can leave them out by choice, but you'd be diverging greatly from the shared canon world.
2. Mystra and the Chosen were "heroes" (as used by WotC in novels, etc.) and on the "good" side; as such, they can be easily and completely ignored all the time.
Not really at all.
Shar and the Netherese are evil, and can only be ignored at the expense of leaving out major portions of the 4E gaming experience. Like never having the PCs fight Sharrans or the Netherese generally.
I disagree entirely. I can involve Shar if I want (actually, the Netherese via Sembia in one campaign), but I don't feel the need to include her as significant in any of the three campaigns that I am running. What "major portions of the 4E gaming experience" are my players missing out of curiosity? I'm running a game in Thay, on the Sword Coast and one in Cormyr. Only one of these games even has anything to do with Shar and thus far, nobody thinks we're missing out on anything "Major portions of the 4E gaming experience" wise.
Perhaps you can substantiate this argument with something that isn't hyperbole.
The second part of the argument is equally nonsensical. One group of players in the games I run is fighting the "rising tide" of Sahuagin, Kuo-Toa and their abberation masters. Another is fighting Daemons, with some Netherese because they make sense in the context of the campaign (and Cormyrs situation in that campaign). Another is fighting something else entirely again, no Netherese or Shar to be seen.
So what complete and utter nonsense.
They also cannot be ignored in terms of the overriding effect that they've had on the lore, including their not-so-subtle influence on Sembia and all of the surrounding regions. Yeah, you can ignore them, but at a huge cost: leaving out many potential adventuring options.
I'm sorry, but this is so ridiculous it actually made me laugh. For one thing, Mystra and her chosen have been involved in just about everything. The raising of the mythal at Myth Drannor? Elminster. Slaying Myrkul and preventing the tablet of fates falling into Bane, Cyric and Myrkuls hands? Mystra and Elminster. Indicated in the creation of Waterdeep, one of the most significant cities in the Sword Coast? Elminster.
Funny how you're being so selective there, but there are many "adventuring" options in the realms for me that don't have to involve Shar or the Netherese at all. I'm running 3 campaigns and it was entirely my decision to implement Shar. I do agree she's present enough, powerful enough and has sufficient influence to be worked into any plot I feel like. I just don't bother choosing to do so and it's not like my PCs are going to go looking for Shar or the Netherese because it would be suicide and it wouldn't be productive for them anyway.
In 4E, elevating Shar and the Netherese was a formal decision that affected the entire feel and tone of the Realms; you can leave them out by choice, but you'd be diverging greatly from the shared canon world.
I couldn't care less and I just can't see how leaving out shar in the two major campaigns I'm running outside of Cormyr (where again, the Netherese influence adds to the campaign I am running, so am happy to add it) does anything at all to my game negatively. Neither do my players and based on that evidence I can't see any support for your argument.
Not really at all.
Yeah, really, they can. See the Simbul's argument about NPCs. ;)
(...) Perhaps you can substantiate this argument with something that isn't hyperbole.
(...) The second part of the argument is equally nonsensical.
(...) So what complete and utter nonsense.
(...) I'm sorry, but this is so ridiculous ...
Let's see... accused of "ridiculous nonsense and hyperbole"... should I even bother replying? I'm guessing that nothing would satisfy you as an answer here, even if I spent hours formulating a very reasoned reply with itemized substantiation, as you're not even moderately open to hearing those arguments in any form. Why? Because you're ultimately happy with the new Realms and the fact that they are fundamentally different.
I couldn't care less and I just can't see how leaving out shar in the two major campaigns I'm running outside of Cormyr (where again, the Netherese influence adds to the campaign I am running, so am happy to add it) does anything at all to my game negatively. Neither do my players and based on that evidence I can't see any support for your argument.
That -is- the point. You're happy to include them, and you do. So you're not actually in the position to argue that they don't have a big influence in your gaming experience. They're a major feature of provided 4E Realms lore. Not using them means leaving out a significant source of lore and potential future adventures.
Let me explain a bit further on "leaving out Shar" and what that would mean. You may not be including Shar in your current campaign, but you've still accepted her and her role in 4E history. Same for the current Netheril empire, as the rest of the nations of 4E Realms do not exist in a vacuum: your players might not be fighting against a shadowvar in a particular adventure, but the Empire is still there, it's still having an influence on your campaign unless you're writing them and their history completely out. Consider using Shar as she was portrayed in 2E, which is to say a goddess that was very, very different than her current portrayal and activity as showed in recent novels. Consider keeping Netheril/Shade as small as it was in 3E, and consider how that one difference might influence the overall feel and tone of your campaigns. Do that, and you may see the point that I'm getting at, which is to say that both Shar and the Netherese have had huge impacts on your 4E game, and would be impossible to ignore (even if you're not using them in the moment) in terms of religion, history and multinational influence. Still seem like ridiculous hyperbole?
I'm sorry, but this is so ridiculous it actually made me laugh. For one thing, Mystra and her chosen have been involved in just about everything. The raising of the mythal at Myth Drannor? Elminster. Slaying Myrkul and preventing the tablet of fates falling into Bane, Cyric and Myrkuls hands? Mystra and Elminster. Indicated in the creation of Waterdeep, one of the most significant cities in the Sword Coast? Elminster.
Funny how you're being so selective there, but there are many "adventuring" options in the realms for me that don't have to involve Shar or the Netherese at all. I'm running 3 campaigns and it was entirely my decision to implement Shar. I do agree she's present enough, powerful enough and has sufficient influence to be worked into any plot I feel like. I just don't bother choosing to do so and it's not like my PCs are going to go looking for Shar or the Netherese because it would be suicide and it wouldn't be productive for them anyway.
You do realize that argument works both ways, right? I mean really, how does Elminster helping to raise a mythal or two affect a current campaign, unless you're running them in those time periods? How does him having an active role in the ToT make any difference unless you're running a story in that period? How does helping the formation of Waterdeep or Cormyr have any impact on the current timeline beyond being a historical figure? There's nothing he's done that can't be altered by replacing his role with someone else entirely, or many someones for that matter, or by putting the PCs in his place to accomplish the same end, or an entirely different one if you're of a mind to do so. Apply that standard to the other Chosen, or even Mystra herself and it comes up pretty much the same way. The same, of course, goes for Shar, the Shadovar, and pretty much anything else you can think of. Seriously, I understand you don't like them as NPCs, that novels and obnoxious players have ruined your opinion of them, but that doesn't mean they're inherently broken because of bad experiences with them. They're as easily ignored as pretty much any other piece of lore you don't like, and only matter as much as the DM wants them to.
There are tons of stories that can be told in Waterdeep, Silverymoon, or Shadowdale that don't involve the Chosen... same goes for Aglarond and Cormyr. Even those big threats to their existance can be told so as not to involve them... and if the players complain or question, well, it should be fairly obvious that the players have the problem, not the NPCs.
Well, craptastic novels probably have some blame as well, but that's a given I think. :D
I have problems with Shar's use (or often enough that of her agents and possessions) through 3.X. The Shadow Weave was a bad joke as an alternate magic system which disappointed me because the shadow magics in Shadow Stone while flawed on specific points were an interesting premise and could have been used well. Involving Shar in the events surrounding the fall of Netheril take more from that part of Toril's history than they give. The Shade plotline was handled badly and connecting it to Shar wasn't all that helpful. However, my issues with her influence on the plotline have little bearing on her utility in a campaign.
Out of curiosity is this foray into the wonderful world of cut and paste a one shot deal, or should I start looking through the archives so I can ID the source of the next trap you set?
Not buying or using any FR material related to the transition to 4E or any FR material set after the Spellplague handles the majority of my potential problems with Shar as part of the game world. Haven't read the stuff so I can't say if I'd really have any issues her in-game.
Yeah, that solves most of the problems created by 4 ed.
"Common Sense for 2009" should be the theme for those of us who regularly play in the 4E Realms.
I do find it ironic that many of the same people who do the complaining about Shar are also the ones who said it was a DM's fault -and not the setting's- if the DM let the Chosen/Elminster/Khelben get in the way of their games.
Casting each as “two separate” problems is an interesting tactic, because there are some differences. Thing is, these aren’t enough to pull the rug out from underneath the obvious irony in taking two contradictory positions.
Must have something to do with selective perception. ;)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
You’ve written a good initial argument IMO, Therise. Here’s the part I have disagree with:
In 4E, elevating Shar and the Netherese was a formal decision that affected the entire feel and tone of the Realms ; you can leave them out by choice, but you'd be diverging greatly from the shared canon world.
Incorrect, in the sense that the 4E Realms (specifically, the FRCG) does not in any way, shape or form make Shar and Netheril into some sort of centerpiece of evil that all player characters are supposed to fight.
Just as people liked to say in the past that the Realms were big and wide, so you could easily avoid the Chosen, etc....so too are the Realms just as big (if not bigger, thanks to Returned Abeir) now. Again: The FRCG does not tell Realms DMs to worry about what the Shades are doing at all times.
There are plenty of other evil (and yes, equally powerful) groups and entities to contend with in the Realms.
The elevation of Shar and The Shades primarily happened in 3E, not 4E. What we’re seeing in 4E is the progress of The Shades over the last century as time marched onward, and the confluence of events around millennia long plotting (IMO) by Shar.
2. Mystra and the Chosen were "heroes" (as used by WotC in novels, etc.) and on the "good" side; as such, they can be easily and completely ignored all the time.
Except that's pretty much not ever how it went down.
Mystra and Company created a Begs the Question problem almost from the start: If the novels are about them and the sourcebooks talk about them and they are depicted as solving all the Realms-threataning problems, why should I (as a player character) adventure in the Realms?
Why won't "they" take care of it? If you are a Realms DM and your players know anything about the setting, you have to at least always account for them as your players advance in level, because the question will come up.
"Easily and completely ignored all of the time" is doable, but the point isn't that it's doable, it's that you have to do it.
Whereas Shar and The Shades don't have that footprint yet. Not even close, in my opinion.
I've yet to run accross anyone explaining how a player said to them at the gaming table, "Um, Shar is like everywhere, so why aren't we battlig her mini-Chosens the Princes of Shade and TelamontElminster?"
As to the beg the question problem... its just as false a premise as to why isn't Shar creating all those problems. A better question, to my mind, would be why should or would 'they' take care of it. That the novels depict them as some sort of band of superheroes or the Realms equivalent shouldn't have any bearing whatsoever on your game. Maybe that idea that the events happened, but not with those NPCs might help? Perhaps the events never happened at all? You're not really talking about substantive problems with the setting itself, but more with how its been presented in relation to NPCs.
I mean seriously, you have to ignore almost every NPC at some point. Why bother adventuring in Waterdeep with folks like Mirt, Asper, Peirgeiron, Kylia, Loene, Nain, Maskar, or any number of other powerful folks being around? What could there possibly be to do with those fellows running around stomping on all those plothooks that the PCs are supposed to be handling? Or Cormyr with its High Knights, War Wizards, Purple Dragons, Harpers, and wayward Princesses? What could possibly be done there that those folks haven't already taken care of? Raven's Bluff is even worse... same with a lot of the Dales... or the North and Sword Coast for that matter, and that's before you even start mentioning the Chosen. Why are those few NPCs so much worse than all those other iconics polluting the Realms with their presence? What makes that suspension of disbelief so much more difficult with what... 9 or 10 NPCs compared to dozens, if not hundreds of others who should be so much worse for presenting blockades in logic as to who's taking care of things? When intrigue is afoot in Cormyr for example, wouldn't it make so much more sense for the High Knights, or even local Harpers to deal with it than the PCs? Why aren't we screaming for them to be removed as well? Those smaller presences are so much more pervasive than 10 people could ever be its not even funny, and yet we can operate just fine with them there...
Honestly, I cannot even fathom why this is even an issue for anyone who just spends five minutes thinking about it.
Except that's pretty much not ever how it went down.
Mystra and Company created a Begs the Question problem almost from the start: If the novels are about them and the sourcebooks talk about them and they are depicted as solving all the Realms-threataning problems, why should I (as a player character) adventure in the Realms?
Why won't "they" take care of it? If you are a Realms DM and your players know anything about the setting, you have to at least always account for them as your players advance in level, because the question will come up.
"Easily and completely ignored all of the time" is doable, but the point isn't that it's doable, it's that you have to do it.
LOL! No, you don't. You really, really don't. Apparently you missed the Simbul's entire point.
Whereas Shar and The Shades don't have that footprint yet. Not even close, in my opinion.
At least it took years for people to acquire the mistaken impression of Mystra and her Chosen. With 4E, it comes built-in with Shar and her Netherese. That's the huge irony.
(...) I mean seriously, you have to ignore almost every NPC at some point. Why bother adventuring in Waterdeep with folks like Mirt, Asper, Peirgeiron, Kylia, Loene, Nain, Maskar, or any number of other powerful folks being around? What could there possibly be to do with those fellows running around stomping on all those plothooks that the PCs are supposed to be handling? Or Cormyr with its High Knights, War Wizards, Purple Dragons, Harpers, and wayward Princesses? What could possibly be done there that those folks haven't already taken care of? Raven's Bluff is even worse... same with a lot of the Dales... or the North and Sword Coast for that matter, and that's before you even start mentioning the Chosen. Why are those few NPCs so much worse than all those other iconics polluting the Realms with their presence? What makes that suspension of disbelief so much more difficult with what... 9 or 10 NPCs compared to dozens, if not hundreds of others who should be so much worse for presenting blockades in logic as to who's taking care of things? When intrigue is afoot in Cormyr for example, wouldn't it make so much more sense for the High Knights, or even local Harpers to deal with it than the PCs? Why aren't we screaming for them to be removed as well? Those smaller presences are so much more pervasive than 10 people could ever be its not even funny, and yet we can operate just fine with them there...
Honestly, I cannot even fathom why this is even an issue for anyone who just spends five minutes thinking about it.
QFT. And explains well why a lot of us think that it's the DM's fault.
And yes, it is ironic in a lot of ways.
I suspect Misc, that you're missing the point a bit... the irony of the situation isn't lost on most of us, and in fact is the point. If the Mystra/Chosen haters can rant endlessly as to why there was a problem when there wasn't,
Ah, but there was. That’s not to say those rants were grounded in solid logic and reasoning (they were rants, after all), but the core idea was solid IMO.
Regardless, I miss points all the time. ;)
Honestly, I cannot even fathom why this is even an issue for anyone who just spends five minutes thinking about it.
Stigger, do you really expect your average gamer to have the same depth of Realmslore knowledge you have? Are they really going to know who Mirt, Asper, Peirgeiron, Kylia, Loene, Nain and Maskar are? (I don't even know who Kylia, Leone and Nain are!)
The name recognition isn’t the same as the Chosen because it’s about popularity and repetitive content.
And for those that do know who those NPCs are: None of them (including the War Wizards, etc...) are in the same league as the Chosen, in terms of raw power, experience and exploits.
Most gamers aren’t Realmslore enthusiasts. Thing is you don’t have to be one to have picked up on the Chosen, Elminster and their kick ass ways.
Remember, we’re talking about gamers, meaning young, mostly male kids and teens who play D&D, like to level their characters, are just dipping into the novels and ponder things like relative power level of NPCs in game terms.
I think a lot of folks are making the mistake of not thinking like gamers or seeing things from their PoV, nor considering what it was like for Realms DMs to have to deal with this.
A far different situation than sitting comfortably in one’s chair, piles of Realms books and novels nearby, peacefully ruminating about it all.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Anyway, those novels and several 2E sourcebooks drove the superhero concept into the minds of gamers. “Shouldn’t have any bearing” won’t get in the way of the reality in this case, nor what TSR (and WotC to a lesser degree) published.
Some examples that come immediately to mind: Fourteen or fifteen years ago a novel (All Shadows Fled??) depicted Elminster during the ToT as literally bubbling over with Mystra’s power, so great was he that he could hold the stuff of a goddess inside him for a time.
Another novel (can’t remember the name) features Khelben in Cormyr, where he leaves poor old Vangey flustered and shocked to learn that Khelben could pass any ward in Cormyr without danger.
And more recently we have the Chosen write-ups all over the FRCS and the novel Elminster in Hell, where the goddess of magic herself saved his old butt.
This all speaks to Meldread’s point about perception. IMO the Chosen and company shined brightest in the spotlight during the 1990s so that’s where the problem was at. By 2000 we had 3E and the FRCS’s recognition of the problem, wherein Elminster reminded DMs and players right at the front of that book that the Realms needed its heroes and was full of many dangers left unopposed.
3E had some mixed success on that front but IMO but the damage was already done.
Let's see... accused of "ridiculous nonsense and hyperbole"... should I even bother replying?
That is how your argument comes off and I still cannot see Shar or Netheril being important to those two campaigns (Cormyr is certainly true, but even Netheril would rapidly realise they are in equal trouble eventually).
That -is- the point. You're happy to include them, and you do. So you're not actually in the position to argue that they don't have a big influence in your gaming experience.
But they don't. The Netheril have a very insignificant effect on the campaign, they are there almost certainly but compared to what the games antagonists are planning on doing they are basically irrelevant. Sure, they could get themselves destroyed as well, but even I believe the Netherese despite worshipping Shar aren't stupid.
Minding, the problem with the Gods since ToT is that they are idiot ball ( www.tvtropes.org , for those who want) carrying high level NPCs. Thankfully, the Netherese and similar aren't portrayed quite as stupid.
They're a major feature of provided 4E Realms lore. Not using them means leaving out a significant source of lore and potential future adventures.
Since when did I say I "wrote them out?", I just aren't using them in my campaigns that I have written and don't feel the need to. It's unlikely I'll ever bother using Shar or the Netherese in fact, because there are so many other interesting places in 4E that I just fail to see why I need to use Shar/Netheril at all.
your players might not be fighting against a shadowvar in a particular adventure, but the Empire is still there, it's still having an influence on your campaign unless you're writing them and their history completely out.
I can't see how Netheril would be able to affect two of my games at all really. I could of course, because as people have noted Shar is a sort of "goes with anything" antagonist (But that's because she's boring). This doesn't mean they are relevant to any game I write by default, exactly where your argument is "nonsense".
Consider keeping Netheril/Shade as small as it was in 3E, and consider how that one difference might influence the overall feel and tone of your campaigns.
Wouldn't change a thing, because neither are relevant to two of them and the Cormyr game would have to alter some encounters/politics. The aftereffects they would be in significantly powerful positions (especially after the resolution of my campaign in Cormyr, depending on if it goes to plan).
Then I fully intend to have a campaign in Sembia, where it becomes apparent that Cormyr is becoming the target of a Netherese invasion (or similar). The actual campaign however doesn't really care about either at all. Neither will my players as they'll have more than enough problems to deal with. Same with the other two.
Do that, and you may see the point that I'm getting at, which is to say that both Shar and the Netherese have had huge impacts on your 4E game, and would be impossible to ignore (even if you're not using them in the moment) in terms of religion, history and multinational influence. Still seem like ridiculous hyperbole?
Yes. Yes it is. Because I'm happily ignoring them and yup, still no impact at all! Especially because the only one it makes any sense for Netheril to have any effect on is the game in Cormyr. I didn't know that Netherils "religion, history and multinational influence" was so important on the bottom of the sea in the Sword Coast and would ask you to cite supporting evidence of this.
So yes, it sounds like "hyperbole" to me easily. You've not substantiated your point at all, which is that my campaigns are automatically affected by shar/netheril when they simply don't come up at all (except in my early writing stage, like everything else). If I ran a game in the Sea of Fallen stars, or indeed even in areas around it, I consider the effects of the Abolethic Sovereignty but my campaign may have nothing to do with them at all. Just because they are there doesn't mean they have anything to do with my campaign or players.
Of course, afterwards if the resolution is suitably bad and a few countries there got destabilised, it could well see the Abolethic Sovereignty decide to go and do whatever they would want to do (presumably eat everyone).
I suspect Misc, that you're missing the point a bit... the irony of the situation isn't lost on most of us, and in fact is the point. If the Mystra/Chosen haters can rant endlessly as to why there was a problem when there wasn't, the same holds for the Shar/Shade haters... hence, irony. I know that it certainly isn't lost on me... I'm rather enjoying it actually.
I should note I've never liked Shar/Netheril even before it was trendy to do so. Especially the whole shadow weave crap blah blah blah urgh.
-Kylia was Laeral's gnomish sidekick down in Skullport.
-Loene was one of the Company of Crazed Venturers.
-Same with Nain Keenwhistler, who last I checked held the record for most numbers of resurrections in the city.
As to the point of popularity and relative content... see, here you're getting into a weird position of the argument. If they're so popular, why are they viewed so negatively? I don't debate that there could be a problem with them for a new DM when faced with players who expect them to show up to save the day, or to be available on demand. But those are problems that are going to pop up for any inexperienced DM with pretty much any setting that has novels with popularized NPCs in it, and is hardly unique the Realms. But a more experienced DM should be able to deal with those players without much effort... should it persist, you're dealing with a problem player, who's going to likely be a problem in any setting, not just the Realms.
I'll admit, its been a long time since I dealt inexperienced players, but going by my long since past experience, it was almost never the setting so much as it was the people I was playing with that created the problems, and those same people were creating the problems regardless of whether it was D&D or Storyteller or Shadowrun or whatever. That's a people problem, not a setting problem, and I see little reason to blame an NPC for the poor behavior of players... I can understand developing a dislike for some NPCs based on associations with bad players and poor authors, as seems to be the case with Aegeri, but I see a distinct difference between the setting and those causes.
See, to me, I have never gotten the impression that the Chosen were superheroes in any sourcebook I've ever read. Perhaps, had I actually read the novels, I might have come away with that perception, but I haven't, and won't, so its nothing I've ever understood. To me, most of those novels are the back-end of dreck pretty much from the start, and hardly something I'd consider unless the synopsis really caught my eye, which has probably happened with fewer than a dozen Realms novels. But even then, I tended to think of the novel setting and the gaming setting as two seperate entities, despite official policy to the contrary.
Speaking towards the 3e FRCS's recognition of a problem, I read that as some fanciful introduction rather than some tacit acknowledgment of a problem... "Elminster's" (read WotC's) way of welcoming you to the Realms, reminding you to sharpen your sword, and to have fun, with no other subtext. A whimsical welcome rather than an admonition, no different from his introductions to the Volo's Guides or Pages From the Mages or whatever, where he pretty much said the exact same thing. He's the face, the tourguide as it were, of the Realms to me, not some Superman with a Pipe and Staff analogy so many others make him out to be.
You know, honestly, its discussions like this that make my conviction that novels should be divorced from canon take deeper and deeper root. I don't think its any great secret that most of these issues arise out of novels, rather than out of sourcebooks...
You know, I can say the exact same thing about my various campaigns in Waterdeep, Cormyr, or the Dales... the Chosen never came up because I never brought them up. It could have I suppose, had the players brought it up, but I can't say I put much effort into thinking about their effect because it was about the furthest thing from my mind... though I'll admit that once I did bring in Storm in something of a cameo mid-campaign, performing at a tavern that the players were thrilled to listen to, though they never actually tried to approach her. Group had a blast running through those campaigns, and never really wondered where those NPCs were. This was supposed to be a story about them afterall, not their supporting roles to the NPCs...
But I don't know how you think, so maybe that approach isn't practical for you, but so long as the group is having fun, I've never found suspension of disbelief to be that big of an issue.
You know, I can say the exact same thing about my various campaigns in Waterdeep, Cormyr, or the Dales... the Chosen never came up because I never brought them up.
The fundamental disconnect is that it's not my choice to bring them up when the PCs decide to do so. That makes the issue, because I'm going to ignore the chosen if I don't want to use them (that's obvious).
As has been stated billions of times: PCs never go looking for high level evil NPCs unless it is plot related. PCs can be all kinds of things, but suicidal is rarely one of them and so the day any of my players actively want to go to Netheril is the day I'll probably be hit by an asteroid and then squished by a falling baleen whale.
It could have I suppose, had the players brought it up, but I can't say I put much effort into thinking about their effect because it was about the furthest thing from my mind
Exactly. It's when someone keeps persisting even after you've explained they aren't there for whatever reason, and Y player decides that you are being unfair/unreasonable based on X. Then you have the worst thing possible in DnD: An argument at the table that isn't ceasing.
Of course my reaction (at the lovely age of 19) was quite over the top compared to how I would do things now. Involving killing the entire lot of them and such, but it was effective and got the game running again. I never anticipate this with Shar/Netheril though, because none of my players care about either and I can't for the life of me (beyond being suicidal) think of why they would actively search out either for any reason (unless it was a PCs character background, which is something I always look at before a game begins so I can think about how to implement PCs backstories into the game).
Still though, I can't help but see this as a problem with players, rather than with the setting. Had it been Greyhawk, would it really have been much different with the likes of Mordenkainen, or Bigby, or whoever? Or in any other setting with their individual iconic protagonist NPCs?
I guess no-one read my last post.
The wole point of the anti-Shar/Shade argument - at least for me - was to get the pro-4eFR people to tell us how ridiculous the argument is...
Which they have, and it is.
It's supposed to be ridiculous, just so they can see it from our pont of view - that Mystra and the Chosen are a problem.
After all... not everyone runs a party of 'good' adventurers. :P
Unfortunately, anti-4eFR people are defending the 'Shar' argument (which I find amusing... for the same exact reason I find the Mystra argument amusing).
An NPC (or group of NPCs) CANNOT become a problem in a game. A game is played by real, live people, and the NPCs - even if they are gods - DON"T EXIST!
The only thing that CAN become a problem are players who pecieve these things as problems.
Unless some of you guys - from both sides - want to tell me how Shar or Mystra shows up at your house at night an throws rocks at your windows.
Both (and their minions) were created in the head of a very creative man (and a few others), and they are figments of HIS imagination. To say they are somehow effecting your 'enjoyment' in the RW is positively ludicrous. They are doing so because you are letting them do so, or because someone else in your group - perhaps the DM - is letting it happen.
These 'beings' exist only in our minds, and in a few words of text and crappy illustrations.
This is why I never understood the "Chosen/Harpers ruin our fun" argument, and I'll never understand why people are allowing the Mystra one to turn into a real argument.
When I first started pushing it, it was supposed to be proof of the absurdity of the opposite argument.
Now, if you want to say that Shar's monolithic presence in the Realms (which is not a 4e problem, it is one that has been escalating since 3e) is ruining our enjoyment of the setting - NOT playing D&D - thats a whole 'nother ball of wax.
I'm utterly disgusted by the 'Drizzt in Shartopia' way things are going these days... but that will never, EVER stop me from enjoying a game set in the Realms.
(I don't even know who Kylia, Leone and Nain are!)
Neither do I.
Then again, there's a lot I don't know about the Realms, and finding new stuff out all the time is part of the fun.
And why I'm still here....
My reading of this is that its ultimately a people problem, rather than a lore/setting problem, but that the lore/setting is identified as a problem in a guilt by association sort of way.
WotC is continuing to use Shar and other deities as NPCs in novels, after they basically bought into the fallacious "Mystra is a problem and needs to be fixed" argument.
I don't recall there ever being an argument.
I don't like the overforegrounding of either god. But distinguishing between the product line (as it actually is, of course: far from there being lots of novels about Mystra's Chosen 'saving' Faerûn, there are actually approximately none) and the underlying setting itself is pretty much the first step you need in reading Realmslore -- someone unable to do that isn't going to understand any milieu, real or fictional, that they haven't lived in first-hand. But I haven't seen that there is a single strong coherent underlying Realms-2008 the way there is with the Realms I know.
In 4E, elevating Shar and the Netherese was a formal decision that affected the entire feel and tone of the Realms; you can leave them out by choice, but you'd be diverging greatly from the shared canon world.
Really, you have no one to blame for your lack of enjoyment but yourself. It is perfectly fine and acceptable to dislike how things have been handled, or to dislike certain events / regions / NPC's / whatever. However, 4th Edition Forgotten Realm's has a very different design than previous editions. The entire setting is more... customizable... to your tastes. WotC did not give you the setting and expect you to use it exactly as printed, they created the setting in such a way to allow you to mold it to suit your needs.
You have 100 years and a massive RSE that literally made the land itself mutable. You can't figure out how to deal with these problems? There are no other sourcebooks coming out for FR, so you aren't screwed over by anything you do to the setting.
The solution to your problem: When the Spellplague happened, the Shade Enclave was pulled over into Abeir, and the surrounding region became Plaguelands.
After that, all you have to do is do a bit of minor tweaking in the surrounding regions to account for the lack of Netheril's existence. Your problem is solved.
If you cannot do that in your games, then it is obvious that the problem is with you, and not with the setting itself. The setting is designed with these approaches in mind. You can add in entire new regions, take out regions that you dislike, have entirely new races of your own creation appear... whatever you want. The sky is the limit.
You obviously dislike the cannon world, and WotC took your feelings into consideration when they created 4th Edition. They made it extremely easy to set yourself free... all you have to do is embrace that freedom. If you purposefully tie yourself down to what is cannon, then you have no one else to blame but yourself for those shackles.
I am not even going to argue with you over whether or not Shar and Netheril are a problem. It is really irrelevant, it is a matter of perception. You believe they are a problem for you, that's fine, the solution to the problem is above.
There are tons of stories that can be told in Waterdeep, Silverymoon, or Shadowdale that don't involve the Chosen... same goes for Aglarond and Cormyr. Even those big threats to their existance can be told so as not to involve them... and if the players complain or question, well, it should be fairly obvious that the players have the problem, not the NPCs.
My point was that the same level of "problem" exists with both Netheril and the Chosen. I will use Cormyr as an example. In 4th Edition, if you were to create a plot that destabilized Cormyr you will have to take into account why Netheril is not making any moves. You have to take the actions of Netheril into account. In 3rd Edition, if you have a plot where the PC's are aiding someone allied with the Zhents who is attempting to seize the throne by force, then you are going to have to take the Harpers into account, as well as any aid (direct and indirect) that are given by the Chosen to the Harpers and other groups that would oppose the PC's efforts. (Including the War Wizards and the Purple Dragons.)
It is the same, as you pointed out in another one of your posts, as having to take the War Wizards or the Purple Dragons into account. The only major difference is the terms of raw power that they possess as individuals. The Chosen, like the Princes of Shade, are extremely powerful so you may have to come up with ways or attempt to preempt scenarios that involve them directly instead of proxies.
In the end, the problems that you face as a DM are the same, and they are approached in exactly the same way.
So long as you stay out of Netheril and Sembia, the problems people have with Shar and Netheril are exactly the same as the problems people claimed to have with Mystra and the Chosen.
And for icing on the cake, if people still can't get over it, then the solution to their problem is above.
Really, you have no one to blame for your lack of enjoyment but yourself. (...)
Should I be shocked that you've handwaved away everything I said, and given the response of "lo-and-behold all the solutions are already within the brilliant new 4E Realms that I should just embrace!"...? Yeah, not shocked. Pretty much expected it, LOL! You were never interested in honest discussion, you just wanted to "school" people you think are wrong.
I don't think your opinion is wrong. Your opinion is that, because of the way Netheril and Shar have been handled, it causes you problems (in terms of dislike, mostly, and as a result of that dislike you hate having to find ways to 'deal' with them). I totally understand that. I felt the same exact way about the Chosen and Mystra. I disliked the way they were handled (mostly due to novels), hated their influence on the setting, and while I liked the concept of the Weave, I hated Mystra as a character and the way she was given center stage.
My only point of contention is when opinion is draped in fact. It's a fact that Shar is given a great deal more focus than she was previously, it is opinion that she has her hand involved in -everything-. Just as it is a fact that Mystra and the Chosen were given a great deal of exposure in the past, and that it was opinion that they were the equivalent of superhero's who'd jump up every time something needed saving.
The entire point of this thread is to clearly paint a parallel between the two for people like yourself. If you can't see the obvious ironic hypocrisy in the position you hold, then well... I suppose people who aren't so emotionally invested in Shar-hate will just chuckle at your expense.
As a final point, way to completely ignore everything I wrote. ;)
You may not like it, but it does not make it any less true. The 4th Edition Realm's were designed with giving all DM's a free hand to make the setting into their own world. You're given the barebones of a setting, decades of lore to build upon, a 100 year time jump to build upon that lore, and a massive RSE that literally makes the world itself mutable allowing you to remove things you dislike, or add in things that you want to exist.
This single fact alone is the major attractive point (for me) with 4th Edition Forgotten Realms. There are scores of things I dislike, but thankfully this one point of light makes it easy for me to deal with them.
There are scores of things I dislike, but thankfully this one point of light makes it easy for me to deal with them.
What exactly is it about Realms-2008's injunction to make the setting one's own that you like better than the 1987 boxed set's?
Whereas the idea that Mystra's Chosen 'took care of everything' never had any truth to it.
Never?
C'mon Farear, think back a bit.
It is the intent that Shar is supposed to be a big thing in the new setting, not merely that sources are focused on her.
Yes, her power is currently ascendant. That is completely different from the -entire- setting revolving around her. Outside of Netheril, Sembia and the regions that directly surround it, you don't even have to -think- about Shar if you don't want to.
Just like you don't have to think about the Simbul unless you're doing something in Aglarond or in Thay. It is absolutely no different than that.
While it's nothing a DM can't fix, you can see how it might be nontrivial to do so if you're playing near the Empire of Netheril. Whereas the idea that Mystra's Chosen 'took care of everything' never had any truth to it.
It's no different than the PC's working for, with or against Red Wizards attempting to invade Aglarond. You had to take the Simbul into account, or remove her from the picture entirely.
The same was true in Silverymoon, if you had a major threat posed to the city. Or Waterdeep, when Blackstaff was still alive. Or Shadowdale with Elminster living there. Or if you cause major problems (either via the PC's or using NPC's) in Cormyr or the Dalelands. The Chosen did not necessarily become problems, but you had to take them - along with other groups, such as the Harpers - into account. If you didn't want them involved you had to come up with a justification for it.
It is absolutely no different with Netheril and Sembia. If you do not want them involved, then you have to come up with a justification for their attention to be elsewhere. If that still isn't good enough, and their simple existence causes problems, then there are perfectly logical ways to get rid of them. I described one above, using the Spellplague.
So the two situations have points in common but they're hardly identical.What exactly is it about Realms-2008's injunction to make the setting one's own that you like better than the 1987 boxed set's?
I like both 4th Edition FR and previous editions. I also dislike certain things about both. They each have their positive and negative qualities, some of them are a double edged sword.
It is true you've always been able to change the Realms to suit your tastes. Nothing ever prevented a DM from doing that, and hordes of people did so. In fact, I am pretty sure the bulk of people who purchased the FRCS didn't even use the Realm's as a whole. They stole an idea, concept, or nation from the setting and placed it in their homebrew. That is why in 4th Edition FR the regional areas are much more modular, making it easier for people to do just that.
Additionally, in the past if you wanted to try and keep things consistent after major changes it often felt like you were dealing with a gordian knot. The lore of the setting was so intertwined that if you started pulling on one thread, you soon found things that you didn't want to touch beginning to unravel as a result. Sometimes, you didn't even catch the problem until later.
This was a double edged sword. I love the lore of the Realms. It's a wonderful setting to let your imagination wander. Yet, it didn't really lend itself to easy customization. At least not as much as I'd like.
Due to the modular nature of the regions, it is easy to change things to suit your tastes. You can take out regions that you dislike, and replace them by entirely new regions of your own design. The Spellplague combined with the 100 year time jump allows you to hand wave most things.
Because they moved the setting forward in time, and didn't retcon it (which would have been worse with this type of change IMO), it allows all the old lore that I love to still be valid as historical lore. This makes my old books still valuable in terms of fluff.
The regions are also only painted in very broad strokes, which is necessary to make them modular. This allows me to modify them more easily, and come up with the details myself with the assistance of previous edition material.
Freeing you from the constraints of the lore and setting, while at the same time still allowing previous edition material to be valid is the primary benefit to 4th Edition, even if you hate everything they've done with the setting. Because everything you hate can easily be nullified more easily than previous editions without running into problems with setting consistency.
Ok...I play and run homebrew as well, and U have tried running FR before and hit the same wall. When I hombrew I likr to start off small and build an overarching tale of the characters...that as they level takes bigger and bigger protions of the world...in 3e there was ALWAYS the point when someone said what about going to XXXXXX for help...where that name was 90% or more of the time a chosen of mystra...
Now I nolonger have that problme...and Shar can never become that problme...atworst she can be come over used...no PC will ever say "Why isn't shar invovled here" the same way they said 'midnight and her justice league' should be...
Therise-
I don't think your opinion is wrong. Your opinion is that, because of the way Netheril and Shar have been handled, it causes you problems (in terms of dislike, mostly, and as a result of that dislike you hate having to find ways to 'deal' with them). I totally understand that. I felt the same exact way about the Chosen and Mystra. I disliked the way they were handled (mostly due to novels), hated their influence on the setting, and while I liked the concept of the Weave, I hated Mystra as a character and the way she was given center stage.
My only point of contention is when opinion is draped in fact. It's a fact that Shar is given a great deal more focus than she was previously, it is opinion that she has her hand involved in -everything-. Just as it is a fact that Mystra and the Chosen were given a great deal of exposure in the past, and that it was opinion that they were the equivalent of superhero's who'd jump up every time something needed saving.
The entire point of this thread is to clearly paint a parallel between the two for people like yourself. If you can't see the obvious ironic hypocrisy in the position you hold, then well... I suppose people who aren't so emotionally invested in Shar-hate will just chuckle at your expense.
As a final point, way to completely ignore everything I wrote. ;)
You may not like it, but it does not make it any less true. The 4th Edition Realm's were designed with giving all DM's a free hand to make the setting into their own world. You're given the barebones of a setting, decades of lore to build upon, a 100 year time jump to build upon that lore, and a massive RSE that literally makes the world itself mutable allowing you to remove things you dislike, or add in things that you want to exist.
This single fact alone is the major attractive point (for me) with 4th Edition Forgotten Realms. There are scores of things I dislike, but thankfully this one point of light makes it easy for me to deal with them.
Still trying to "school" me, I see. How's that working for you?
Considering Shar and Cyric (the Tool) were pretty much the root cause of most of 4e, how exactly are they not absolutely central to the setting, if only abstractly? I seem to recall Shar being behind one of the central themes of 3e as well, in her role with the whole Shadow Weave and the Return of the Netherese thing... Bane being supposedly central, but treated almost as a comic relief in afterthought. Considering his long-standing hatred and subsequent fued with Mystra, it struck me as odd that he was seemingly left out entirely of her demise, and stuck playing the comic relief of the lower planar set...
But all that aside, which I admit is nitpicking to a certain degree, but it serves to illustrate a point, that there are plenty of examples we can all point towards to justify any given opinion. You'll excuse me for not giving anecdotal evidence all that much credence, but I tend to consider it a fairly low form of evidence for discussion purposes, which I'm sure many will agree with, given how often the mantra of the unreliability of the internet as a statistical source is made on both sides of most discussions that invoke it when it suits whatever opinion is being pushed.
So here it is... if opinions expressed on the internet are unreliable, and we have no real way of verifying if anecdotal accounts of large numbers of people being for or against either Mystra or Shar being expressed one way or another are true or not, why not stick to the facts of the setting and the lore, actual information available in novels or sourcebooks, and use that to prove or disprove our positions? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that approach won't be really acceptable, since the facts don't really support either the anti-Mystra/Chosen or the anti-Shar/Shade positions in really concrete ways, and largely rely on personal interpretation of said facts. At least if we discount anecdotal evidence we have no way of really backing up...
My point is, and I'm guessing this was Meldread's somewhat obtusely phrased (and MT's as well, though he was much more clear about it) point as well, is that both discussions are essentially pointless, and are only a problem if made a problem by the individual groups, since both can be proven and refuted quite easily depending on how selectively one chooses their illustrating facts, but when viewed as a whole, fall apart fairly easily as arguments go.
Same goes for this whole edition war garbage. Depending on where one places the stress for what's important to them as gamers in a system, any edition can be lionized of villified, but not much else. Every edition, including 4e, has had its shortcomings and strongpoints, but those relative pros and cons are going to carry different weight with any given individual, and so any given view on those rulesets are going to be an opinion, not a fact, when it comes to quality of the ruleset. What makes something a deal-breaker or a deal-maker is going to vary from person to person, and can't be judged universally.
Hopefully, I'm just stating the obvious here, but just in case, I'm saying it anyway.
they became the central theme of the setting cause the designers had some different interpretation on how the church of Shar operates
Not so much the sourcebooks though - more a problem of the authors trying to prove the sheer 'uberness' of their characters. Sourcebooks at least need to follow rules; novels, not so much.
***Eraseed a really long post here***
Decided not to beat a dead horse anymore. The only point I would still like to make is that NONE OF US plays in the 'novel' Realms. That is a completely seperate Quantum Universe from our home games, and I'll never understand why people let it effect their games when it has no bearing... unless YOU let it.
Bottom line is, if you really want to enjoy the setting (for gaming), then you have to just ignore the novels. Most of them, at any rate.
Yeah, you found me out. I'm out to get you. Better hide. ;) Ooga-booga.
Stigger-
So how exactly does the entire premise of the Spellplague that brought us 4e work if you want to keep Mystra and her Chosen around? That doesn't really seem that trivial, since you essentially have to discard the base premise of the setting... Sure, discarding Netheril or Thay is relatively easy in the dearth of lore, but how are we to explain away the defining baseline event, while still keeping most of the information in the FRCG relevant to our campaign?
Don't kill off any of the Chosen. Elminster and the Simbul remained immortal so there is no reason the others wouldn't as well. Then have Mystra trapped in Azuth's Staff, which Asmodeus (or Shar) has... and then eventually work your campaign toward having her set free.
The only thing that you'd lose out on is the Weave, but if you want to change mechanics (or fluff to say that the Weave is now being used for the new magic system) then... well... nobody is stopping you.
Alternatively, if you simply need Mystra to be alive and free, you have 100 years for her to escape the staff. In the end, Mystra is only dead if you want her dead.
In fact, you could even have the Spellplague without killing Mystra. Just have it created by Shar and unleashed on the world as a weapon against Mystra.
So long as the Spellplague happens and you have a 100 year jump, then you're pretty much set.
Considering Shar and Cyric (the Tool) were pretty much the root cause of most of 4e, how exactly are they not absolutely central to the setting, if only abstractly? I seem to recall Shar being behind one of the central themes of 3e as well, in her role with the whole Shadow Weave and the Return of the Netherese thing... Bane being supposedly central, but treated almost as a comic relief in afterthought. Considering his long-standing hatred and subsequent fued with Mystra, it struck me as odd that he was seemingly left out entirely of her demise, and stuck playing the comic relief of the lower planar set...
The same is true for other deities trapped on the lower planar set. Mystra totally upstaged Selune in her own feud with Shar, just as an example. Shar and Cyric were behind an event. Ao was not the central premise for 2nd Edition, even though he was behind the ToT. The same is true for Cyric and Midnight who played huge roles in the ToT. They became deities during that time. Cyric killed multiple deities and caused all sorts of problems. No one accused him of being the center of the setting.
I will reference my previous comment about the window into the Realms. We are only allowed to see a small portion of what is going on at any one time. Bane, Selune, and others are still active doing things. We just don't see it or hear about it.
So here it is... if opinions expressed on the internet are unreliable, and we have no real way of verifying if anecdotal accounts of large numbers of people being for or against either Mystra or Shar being expressed one way or another are true or not, why not stick to the facts of the setting and the lore, actual information available in novels or sourcebooks, and use that to prove or disprove our positions? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that approach won't be really acceptable, since the facts don't really support either the anti-Mystra/Chosen or the anti-Shar/Shade positions in really concrete ways, and largely rely on personal interpretation of said facts. At least if we discount anecdotal evidence we have no way of really backing up...
Here I will also reference my previous comments talking about perception. And as you said that perception is almost always created by the novels. The simple flat out fact, devoid of opinion, is that Mystra was neither all encompassing nor was Shar, but each were given prominent roles in the novels that at least in some instances, completely eclipsed other people/things/events. This in turn led to the perceptions that developed due to the window that I spoke about.
My point is, and I'm guessing this was Meldread's somewhat obtusely phrased (and MT's as well, though he was much more clear about it) point as well, is that both discussions are essentially pointless, and are only a problem if made a problem by the individual groups, since both can be proven and refuted quite easily depending on how selectively one chooses their illustrating facts, but when viewed as a whole, fall apart fairly easily as arguments go.
That's my point, yes.
Bottom line is, if you really want to enjoy the setting (for gaming), then you have to just ignore the novels. Most of them, at any rate.
Quoted for truth! :P
In fact, you could even have the Spellplague without killing Mystra. Just have it created by Shar and unleashed on the world as a weapon against Mystra.
Or a defense mechanism by Mystra which is something I'm considering. Haven't decided if I like the baseline mechanics for 4E yet but if I want to run my own conversion then I'm tempted to say that Mystra tears the Weave down and re-crafts it in a more basic form.
The current mechanics for 4E magic don't seem to support some of the very nasty but also very finicky tricks of older editions. If Cyric and Shar managed to sabotage the Weave using such tricks then Mystra might as a countermeasure tear it down and re-craft it in a simpler but more robust form, counter-acting the sabotage and detering similar sabotage in one move.
Bottom line is, if you really want to enjoy the setting (for gaming), then you have to just ignore the novels. Most of them, at any rate.
Ok, I don't know how it is by you...but I know of and have atleast an ok relationship with a couple dozen role-players in the CT area...and they all fall into one of 2 groups...1)love the novels and read lots/all of them...2) wont play in the realms ever...
How do you handle as a Dm when in the middle of a thy invasion story Your PCs stop what they are doing to search for symbul???
What do you do as a PC when Elmintster and Co show up and you get to watch a fight?
what do you do as eaither PC or DM when others start saying "Where are the chosen"??
see RPGs are not solo games...as long as there are novel fans...I have to put up with this ****...I am sure it will get that way again....but for now I am enjoying the realms as a place of UNKNOWNS
How do you handle as a Dm when in the middle of a thy invasion story Your PCs stop what they are doing to search for symbul???
Find a reason for the Simbul not to be involved. If your no where near Aglarond, or your PC's have no contact / connection with her it becomes somewhat impractical. The same is true for most of the other Chosen. If for some reason they would most certainly like to involve themselves, then you should plan ahead for that.
Like I said previously, planning around the Chosen is similar to planning around the Purple Dragons in Cormyr or the Flaming Fist in Baldur's Gate. They're the local powers in the region, and if you want them out of the picture you need to think of a way to handle it. The same is true for the Chosen.
What do you do as a PC when Elmintster and Co show up and you get to watch a fight?
It depends on if it's appropriate or not. If a DM pulls that type of crap all the time, and it bothers you, tell him and if an agreement cannot be reached find a new group. There are certainly some DM's out there like this... I remember one complaint post from several years ago where a player had a DM who brought Drizzt into his group. The DM was playing Drizzt like a DMPC, and was adventuring with the rest of the group, seemingly doing all that he could to upstage the PC's. So it does happen.
what do you do as eaither PC or DM when others start saying "Where are the chosen"??
Same as the first point. They're busy, missing, too far away, dead or whatever.
The same is true for Shar / Netheril.
How do you handle as a Dm when in the middle of a thy invasion story Your PCs stop what they are doing to search for symbul???
I'd probably have the invasion begin in earnest while they weren't paying attention and take the campaign in a very different direction. Or maybe reveal clues that she had been caught in a trap of some sort, maybe a modified spell engine or something, by which time they were the ones on the spot and didn't have time to get help.
What do you do as a PC when Elmintster and Co show up and you get to watch a fight?
Start throwing dice at the DMs head unless it leads to something interesting, like leaving them too injured or exhausted to face the real BBEG, so its up to us... I'm guessing its not going to lead to anything good though, so finding a new DM seems like the best option.
what do you do as eaither PC or DM when others start saying "Where are the chosen"??
Start throwing dice at their heads... at much higher velocities, as a player. And then probably respond "hopefully stealing someone else's kills and XP instead of ours", and if all goes well laugh and move on like it never happened. As a DM, I'd probably have a voice resound around them telling them that they were busy stealing someone else's kills, but if they leave their band name and any wizard sigils, they'll be there to steal theirs as soon as they can, thank them, and tell them to have a nice day. Of course that would probably trigger an encounter since the booming voice would likely attract a wandering monster... even if its only a rabid squirrel.
I'd say that you find the Simbul (or Elminster, or whomever...), and she solves your problem. In fact, she solves all your problems... you never need to pick-up a sword or magic wand again, and you grow old and fat, dying in obscurity somewhere.
Now please roll-up a new character who actually wants to participate in adventures. :D
Seriously... just WHAT THE HELL IS THE POINT IN PLAYING if you are going to have someone else do everything for you?
You can't possibly give them experience for that you know - they only get points if THEY DO SOMETHING.
If players are doing that, then they do not even understand the purpose of D&D. Thats like having someone else take an IQ test for you... and then bragging about your score.
Bottom line is, if you really want to enjoy the setting (for gaming), then you have to just ignore the novels. Most of them, at any rate.
Good thing you said "most of them."
I ran a good six level's worth of play in my Third Edition D&D game off of the events in Death of the Dragon (book three of the Cormyr Saga).
And to keep this minimally on topic: The lead in adventure was a quest into Netheril to recover a Sphere of Annihilation as a means to combat the magic drinking Ghazneths that were slaughtering Cormyr's finest mages and warriors.
Once in Netheril, the players ran across an imprisoned Shade (the Shade Captain Leevoth, write-up on page 315 of the FRCS) who had been caught inside a Mirror of Life Trapping before his home city retreated to the Plane of Shadow (4E's Shadowfell plane, for you new people) centuries before.
That was a fun first encounter with the (got to use the Shadow Weave on my players) and a harbinger of things to come sixteen levels and about six game years later.
Shar prevails!!!!
GMforPowergamers-
Find a reason for the Simbul not to be involved. If your no where near Aglarond, or your PC's have no contact / connection with her it becomes somewhat impractical. The same is true for most of the other Chosen. If for some reason they would most certainly like to involve themselves, then you should plan ahead for that.
It depends on if it's appropriate or not. If a DM pulls that type of crap all the time, and it bothers you, tell him and if an agreement cannot be reached find a new group. There are certainly some DM's out there like this... I remember one complaint post from several years ago where a player had a DM who brought Drizzt into his group. The DM was playing Drizzt like a DMPC, and was adventuring with the rest of the group, seemingly doing all that he could to upstage the PC's. So it does happen.
Same as the first point. They're busy, missing, too far away, dead or whatever.
The same is true for Shar / Netheril.
I answered that somewhere else recently -
I'd say that you find the Simbul (or Elminster, or whomever...), and she solves your problem. In fact, she solves all your problems... you never need to pick-up a sword or magic wand again, and you grow old and fat, dying in obscurity somewhere.
Now please roll-up a new character who actually wants to participate in adventures. :D
Seriously... just WHAT THE HELL IS THE POINT IN PLAYING if you are going to have someone else do everything for you?
You can't possibly give them experience for that you know - they only get points if THEY DO SOMETHING.
If players are doing that, then they do not even understand the purpose of D&D. Thats like having someone else take an IQ test for you... and then bragging about your score.
yea see you have to go out of your way...
Seriously... just WHAT THE HELL IS THE POINT IN PLAYING if you are going to have someone else do everything for you?
that is my point....why play a game with 'midnight and her justice league'
I don't like the overforegrounding of either god. But distinguishing between the product line (as it actually is, of course: far from there being lots of novels about Mystra's Chosen 'saving' Faerûn, there are actually approximately none)...
Oh come on, Faraer, facts like that take all the fun out of bringing up the same complaints over and over again.
in 3e there was ALWAYS the point when someone said what about going to XXXXXX for help...where that name was 90% or more of the time a chosen of mystra...
Just like in any setting with people and events in it and not just a flat backdrop, there are hundreds of individuals and groups who PCs could try to go to for help. Indeed, any mid-level adventuring band will have alliances, understandings and agreements with many of them, enmity with more, and have been knowingly or unknowingly manipulated by others.
Working together with others is indeed a very good way to get things done. Going to the nearest 'powerful' 'good-aligned' person and begging, however, isn't. Many of these people spend most of their time travelling, sometimes to other worlds and planes. If not, even gaining an audience with them is likely to be difficult and time-consuming. If you do, you have to convince them that you're telling the truth, that it's more important than what they're involved with already, and that their interests (which include an array of short- and long-term personal, political and philosophical projects and concerns) lie with what you want them to do. You risk them trying to move things in a quite different direction from what you anticipated, escalating out of your control, making dangerous new foes and getting embroiled in feuds and conflicts you know nothing about. If, despite all this, you do convince one of the mighty to weigh in, unless they're an adventuring band most likely they'll do so the way they usually do and that's the most effective way of using their time: directing or manipulating others. High-level characters almost never zip off spontaneously to throw their magical might around: that's a sure way to fall into traps, fall prey to unpredictable magical wards and local situations. People who are so foolhardy don't make it to high level unless they have Tymora herself looking out for them.
So, getting other people to do what you want is a major part of how things are achieved in the Realms. Trying to find people you don't know and just asking them, however, is a terrible, rank-amateur, and just bloody difficult way to go about it. Even so, it might be something that a certain naive kind of people would try. But, as Markus says, they wouldn't be adventurers.
Bottom line is, if you really want to enjoy the setting (for gaming), then you have to just ignore the novels. Most of them, at any rate.
You don't have to. If you want to go that way, it's only the RSE trilogies you really have to worry/not worry about: the events of most of the fiction could easily be happening (or not) in parallel with the events of your campaign, and the PCs would mostly never know.
that is my point....why play a game with 'midnight and her justice league'
The sources don't begin to support that characterization of the characters you're talking about. There are many more active (but less showcased) individuals and groups it applies to better. And you play in a world with those characters because a complex web of intrigues, feuds, alliances and consequences feels far more real, and is for many of us far more fun, than a bare, lonely backdrop with just you and some bad guys.
We aren't talking about people who know a lot about FR here, and we aren't talking about people who know how to play the game. Think back to when you started playing for the first time. I'm sure you can come up with all sorts of things that'd either make you cringe or wonder what the hell you were thinking. Others might even make you giggle at how ridiculous it was...
We're talking about people coming to D&D and FR the game for the first time, mostly. They are most likely familiar with the novels, which is why they pick up the setting. Being familiar with the novels means that they're familiar with the iconics.
If you put yourself in those shoes, it makes perfect sense to run to Elminster when there is a problem. Why wouldn't you? Sure, it's not the point of being an adventurer and all the obvious arguments that have been made... but you know nothing about that. You're a total newbie.
Imagine sitting down for the first time to D&D and FR with a new DM. The guy knows nothing about DMing, and only knows the Realms via the novels. He wants to role-play because it's a way to keep the stories he read about alive and fresh in his imagination. Who is this DM naturally going to turn to and introduce into his stories?
This is largely a symptom of being a newbie to the game. Yet, I can bet you that it happens rather frequently. How many people are chased away from D&D or the setting after experiencing a DM running around in his game with Elminster as a DMPC?
There is no malice there, just simple ignorance of how the game works and a love for the setting's characters and a wish to extend the story beyond the books. There is nothing wrong with that in and of itself, but as we all know it defeats the purpose of the game.
An experienced DM or player is never going to do these things, at least not if they're any good. But if we all think back to when we first started playing, I am certain that we can remember things, plots, characters or in game events that we'd never even consider doing today. Experience matters and it is why I firmly believe that for most people to enjoy a role-playing game such as D&D they need to be introduced by an experienced DM. If the DM does a good job then I think anyone can be made a fan.
Anyway, I just think this needs to be brought to the forefront of the discussion.
Just as Gary Gygax's original D&D books took for granted a lot of knowledge about wargaming and fantasy fiction that many younger players didn't have, the various Realms sourcebooks also take for granted important aspects of how the setting works that only become clear in the fiction, reading between the lines in some of the sourcebooks, and taking in things like current clack. That's why I wish the 3E FRCS had gone into Faerûn's society and multiplicity and adventuring culture a bit more, and been a bit less of a catalogue. The 4E FRCG missed its chance: it took the Eberron '10 points' format and spent most of them on the changes rather than more substantive things.
How many players have been chased away by DMs' poor use of Elminster? Judging by these threads, on several boards over several years, the answer is, surprisingly to me, almost none. The people assuming it's like that -- because they heard someone else say it was, or it's 'just obvious' -- outnumber the actual mentioned instances by orders of magnitude.
But you're right, all details aside, it's easy to get the wrong end of the stick about things. I'm sure I think lots of wrong things about subjects I only know superficially. There's no shame in it; I just hope I don't make too much of an idiot of myself, don't mislead anybody else by passing off my misapprehensions as facts, and don't stick to them too stubbornly (despite the strong psychological dynamics that make people do so) when I find better information.
How many players have been chased away by DMs' poor use of Elminster? Judging by these threads, on several boards over several years, the answer is, surprisingly to me, almost none. The people assuming it's like that -- because they heard someone else say it was, or it's 'just obvious' -- outnumber the actual mentioned instances by orders of magnitude.
I don't have the answer to the question, but I am rather certain that at least some have had such experiences. And I know people, from other forums, and now some of them post here since the release of 4th Edition, who wouldn't play in FR due to the Chosen and Mystra. A lot of them were / are Eberron fans, so it is easy to see why. (Eberron pretty much went out of its way to say, "I am not the Forgotten Realms.")
The 4E Realms has gotten them to take another look at the setting, as well as former FR players who had grown tired of it in the past.
However, about the absence of people chased away from D&D and the Realms because of situations that I described... obviously, you would not read about them on D&D or the Realms forums. They would have no reason to post, seeing as how they no longer have an interest in D&D or the Realms. :P
Even despite their absence, we all know how devastating role-playing games can be with a bad DM or bad players. It can be completely ruined. Even if they are not bad, there are still often conflicts of style and different ways to derive enjoyment.
I wouldn't preclude the existence of people who would actually ENJOY games where the DM pretty much had Elminster solve all their problems... and they basically just watched. I assume such games would be more along the lines of conventional storytelling, with the "players" occasionally interacting with the story but more members of the audience than actual participants.
I agree with your last point. The people who say DMs shouldn't use these NPCs at all are being far too prescriptive. Just as there are people who strongly dislike linear scenarios, people who avoid games without a clear DM-driven 'plot', and lots in between, likewise there are players who want to be the only adventuring types around, and those who enjoy cultivating NPC friends and allies.
We're talking about people coming to D&D and FR the game for the first time, mostly. They are most likely familiar with the novels, which is why they pick up the setting. Being familiar with the novels means that they're familiar with the iconics.
Meldread, I salute your efforts.
Not to put a damper on them, but I must say for the last nine years I've been basically trying to get people to see things from the PoV you are describing, with little success.
I wish you better luck than I’ve had.
I guess it comes down to the idea of having a hobby, and then watching it altered beyond recognition because some punk was born too late and can't be bothered with at least trying to catch up. I made that effort, and see little to no reason why they shouldn't have to as well. I know, I'm evil for not caring about the newbs and their feelings, but that's the sort of mood I'm in. Maybe I'll have a different opinion tomorrow after putting distance between current frustrations, but right now, I could care less about them.
New guy comes in, has a legit problem and somebody (usually the same set of people) always came down on the poor newb for daring to suggest the darling NPCs of the Realms were somehow causing a problem in the newb's game.
That's not to say good advice wasn't offered up. There was always some form of advice along the lines of "Stand up for yourself and your game, already!" But it was like pulling teeth with some people to get them to recognize the underlying problem in teh setting.
::::::::::::::::::::::
I'm sorry you're down right now Stigger. I'd suggest going outside to enjoy the endless sunshine of the Bay Area, but it's cloudy and cold out. I do have some spare warm fuzzies (Christmas leftovers) tho, so I'll send those your way. I hope you like pink. ;)
Can I ask why it is a problem of the setting, when so many others can run it wthout those problems?
If something is 'broken', doesn't that mean everyone should be having the same problem? Why is it others - with other sets of players - do not have those problems?
Shouldn't that logically mean the problem lies with the players, not the setting?
If three planes crash coming out of the same airbase, I find out who trained those pilots - I don't shut-down the airbase!
You're blaming something which is quite obviously NOT at fault, else everyone would be having the same problem.
And if people think that you solve problems in D&D by getting someone else to solve them for you, then they do indeed PLAY THE GAME WRONG.
Sorry, thats NOT an opinion - thats a fact. YOU do not get experience if someone else does everything for you, and getting experience is the whole premise of the game. I have a funny feeling that 90% 0f these 'problem players' never even bothered to read through the PHB.
We did not need a new setting, we needed better-educated gamers.
I am so running-out-of-steam where these FR argumants are concerned, buuuut.
Can I ask why it is a problem of the setting, when so many others can run it wthout those problems?
If something is 'broken', doesn't that mean everyone should be having the same problem? Why is it others - with other sets of players - do not have those problems?
People are capable of ignoring problems in real life even when they know there's a problem. Addicts do it all the time. That doesn't mean there isn't a problem, just that people don't want to deal with it.
Insisting that every high level character is busy or just doesn't care to deal with a problem in their own backyard is plausible once or twice, but after a while it gets old. And it's not as if there's any lack of wizards capable of casting "Wish" around.
If three planes crash coming out of the same airbase, I find out who trained those pilots - I don't shut-down the airbase!
Sometimes the problem would be caused by the airbase, though. It's runway might be marginal for the new types of plane that are flying from it, it might have a difficult approach which some types of plane could manage and others can't.
And if people think that you solve problems in D&D by getting someone else to solve them for you, then they do indeed PLAY THE GAME WRONG.
Funny how people object when someone tells them they're playing the game the wrong way. It was a regular complaint of people objecting to 4th Edition that WotC are telling them how to play the game, for example.
Sorry, thats NOT an opinion - thats a fact. YOU do not get experience if someone else does everything for you, and getting experience is the whole premise of the game. I have a funny feeling that 90% 0f these 'problem players' never even bothered to read through the PHB.
We did not need a new setting, we needed better-educated gamers.
Talking of metagaming, some people aren't playing purely for the sake of level advancement. Not that there's anything wrong with playing that way, but there's as many right ways of playing D&D as there are groups having fun playing it.
I'm normally selfish and hardheaded as well, but it's precisely for those reasons that I view the situation differently. :P
After all, if people are chased away from the hobby or fail to take up interest in it... then it is bad for me. WotC is primarily concerned about their bottom line, and if the Realm's was doing fantastic they really wouldn't have taken the risk that they did. That they did take the risk says to me that D&D and FR were not doing as well as they should have been doing... which, if you follow that trend into the future, means the hobby or the setting dies.
MarkusTay63-
I'm not really into telling people on *HOW* they should play their game. I believe it's called a game for a reason, with the primary objective being to have fun, however you derive it.
I certainly don't follow the rules to the letter. They're just guidelines. I certainly don't reward XP based on how it's typically rewarded. You get XP when I say you get it.
Players are like rats. They always look for the easiest path to the cheese. :P
I give out XP for all sorts of reasons. For overcoming challenges, for achieving a plot objective, for simply being badass, for taking a serious risk that puts their characters in danger, for good role-playing, for finding diplomatic solutions to situations, for being true to their character (and not just going after what the player wants)... and so on and so forth. XP is a reward, and like all rewards, I hand them out when and where I feel appropriate.
If I were to hand out XP for every battle, then it would only encourage players to seek out more battles in order to advance their characters. There are other paths to advancement and greatness!
I don't think Elminster achieved his greatness by grinding out dungeon after dungeon. He doesn't live in a MMORPG. :P
Can I ask why it is a problem of the setting, when so many others can run it wthout those problems?
the fact that this problme comes up enough to warent you getting tired tells me I am not alone in it...
Shouldn't that logically mean the problem lies with the players, not the setting?
Yes my player base is a part of the problme...When I play I don't want 'midnight and her jusctice league' anywhere near the game...I want to be the hero...
And if people think that you solve problems in D&D by getting someone else to solve them for you, then they do indeed PLAY THE GAME WRONG.
I did solve the problme...I stoped buying and playing FR for years...
YOU do not get experience if someone else does everything for you, and getting experience is the whole premise of the game. I have a funny feeling that 90% 0f these 'problem players' never even bothered to read through the PHB.
my 'problme players run the gambit from basic D&D players since 1970's to newbies just in for 4e and just about everything inbetween
We did not need a new setting, we needed better-educated gamers.
I'ld like both please :D
Let me give a real life example or two...
My first FR game 2e...I had never herd of the settinhg except for little bit here and there... My character a spellfire Ranger just wanted to be a farmer...but was being chased by powerful monsters...and had to keep moveing. MY best friedn (In game) was a Fighter who was an adrenalin junkie..
I thought Blackstaff and Symbol, and eleminster were wa over powered NPC..but the DM had them saving our buts, however it was my character getting us into trouble, and it was fun to roleplay...
My first running FR 2e
OK I had this idea for they to try to invade with this magic dohickey I made up that allowed them to channel any prepaired spell into a damaging bolt depending on the level of the spell they used(1d4 per level up to level 3 1d6 per level up to level 6 1d8 per level up to level 9)
Game 1 started off with One of my best friends who read all the novels complaining "Mystra would never allow it" about my little braclett...OK I got him settleed down
About a month into gaming...the seige of the dale lands...guess what city all the PCs wanted to go to...I'll give you a hint starts with S ends in Hadowdale...
at 12th level they were trying to find an artafact to stop my main bad guy "The zulkair of Enchantment" and they decided the easier way would be to plane shift to Mystra...who my best friend was calling midnight by then... and explain the situation...that game ended becuse My players walked when I said "She didn't care about the invasion"
My 3e game...
I made the mistake of starting it in Waterdeep...the whole game was going to be an intrigue based game where whorshipers of Thoon had infltraited the highest level of the city...
We made less then 3 hours before I herd "How are they stoping blackstaff"...."You know he is a chosen AND a Harper"
Becuse the Chosen are the JLA and the Harpers are the Outsiders...and Batman...ah I mena blackstaff is a member of BOTH....
ALl three games had diffrent PCs...with some over lap.
I HATE the amount of NPCs that my PCs know better then I do becuse they are 'fans'
Solution: DOn't buy or play in the realms...
WotC realized enough players and DMs had the same problme...they fixed it... NOw I play in the realms and might start agame again...
Insisting that every high level character is busy or just doesn't care to deal with a problem in their own backyard is plausible once or twice, but after a while it gets old. And it's not as if there's any lack of wizards capable of casting "Wish" around.
That may be true according to the rules that let you reach anyone you like all over the globe (once you're on a certain level). I think the problem lies with the system. There are just too many opportunities to get from one place to the next or to get in contact with someone, and they're too easy to come by and too easy to use. I've heavily nerfed teleportation (it's become so dangerous that nobody ever uses it unless their life depends on it) and various telepathy-like spells and powers (they're rarer and come with various prerequisites) IMC. They're practical when all you care for is dungeon-hopping, but firstly, they don't exactly make for a believable setting (or rather, most settings don't make much sense with these powers as prevalent and wide-spread as the rules suggest), and secondly, they're serious plot-breakers for too many plots - and the way I see it, that doesn't hold true only for the Realms, but for every setting. (Midnight, one of my favorite examples, had to find the fine line between "We've changed most of the technical stuff so our setting makes sense" and "Hey, it's still D20, you can use it with the PHB!" Nonetheless, Fantasy Flight had to change the spells and powers beyond recognition.)
When you're playing some kind of modern RW campaign, you always have to find a way to explain why the characters can't just call the police, the army or whatever. (For example, many contemporary movies just wouldn't work without the "The protagonist can't go to the authorites" premise.) How is this different? Why is Elminster living a couple of hundred miles away a problem when you have a situation in Cormyr, but the Purple Dragons who are right next door aren't?
When you're playing in a vacuum in which there are only the PCs, some villagers in need of protection, and lots and lots of bad guys, you don't face these problems, true. Such a vacuum may be many things, but a couple of things it's not would be interesting, believable, intriguing, thought-provoking or plot-hook-inspiring.
Talking of metagaming, some people aren't playing purely for the sake of level advancement. Not that there's anything wrong with playing that way, but there's as many right ways of playing D&D as there are groups having fun playing it.
Here I have to agree with you whole-heartedly. The reproach that you're playing the game wrong when you try to portray your PC in a believable manner is as one-dimensional as it gets. Sure, when the players and the GM are on the same page ("If we went running to the authorites, there'd be nothing left for us to do."), they have to find a way - hopefully all together - why the PCs wouldn't do such a thing. But saying that you're playing to earn XP, and that that's more than enough reason to prevent anyone from doing the logical thing in-game, is way off the mark.
To me, being the most powerful living being besides the bad guys doesn't have any appeal whatsoever, and what's more: No halfway believable or interesting world would work under such a premise. So the solution isn't "Delete all non-evil NPCs of a higher level than the caracters", but "Find a way to motivate the characters (and their players, of course) to not seek out help." And that's accomplished in a number of ways. Faraer made a very good suggestion: Turn the PCs' plea for help into an adventure of its own, and have it end with the experience that you better not run to [insert most-hated NPC] just like that. (The NPC does help them, but in a manner that still incorporates their doing the bulk of the work themselves. // The NPC makes clear that the PCs will be indebted to him in a way they might not find favorable. // The NPC declines because she really can't help right now, and the PCs have lost precious time. // The NPC reacts to the news in a much different way than the PCs expected, and actually makes the situation worse. // Unbeknownst to the PCs, the NPC has received word of an upcoming attempt to divert his attention, and suspiciously, the PCs turn up and claim they've come to ask for his help...) Enough of these experiences, and the PCs have good reason to think twice before running to the powers that be.
Of course there's still the occasional use of the "Elminster's out for lunch" classic. And once you've nerfed the technical side of things, "problems" like these don't even turn up.
DB
That's why I always gave people here such a hard time in the past.
New guy comes in, has a legit problem and somebody (usually the same set of people) always came down on the poor newb for daring to suggest the darling NPCs of the Realms were somehow causing a problem in the newb's game. (... )
Frankly, I got tired of hand-holding noobs as well; and let me clarify: not newbies, but noobs. If people cannot be bothered to learn to play before they turn into problem players, whether they misunderstand the concept of adventuring, or relying on one's own party, or thinking they know everything about a canon world and how that "should" apply 1:1 within a game setting, then they can find another group to play with. Life is too short to hand-hold people through life, much less hand-hold them through a game. And honestly, it's not so much about being "new" as it is dealing with a "noob" personality type: those who expect hand-holding, or don't bother learning how to play, or they metagame, and then want to be in charge.
The same "problem" occurs in online games I've played, like World of Warcraft, in that someone wants to join your guild and then begs incessantly for money, or run-throughs, or whatnot. There's a sense of entitlement that they should be helped through everything because they "know" they'd be awesome playing with experienced gamers, or they lie about their experience; and they're more than willing to tell you that X and Y happened in the novels, and that you're RPing something inappropriately (and they're wrong) when they don't know how to use the basic skills of their characters. At some point, you just have to say to the person "I'm sorry, but this isn't the guild / group / setting for you" and give them the boot unless they have a change of heart and actually learn the damn game. It's not a "legit problem" with the game, or the setting, or with experienced players being "mean," it's a problem with "noobs" (again: not "newbies") who impose their sense of entitlement onto the game and the DMs who let them.
Having said that... GMforPowergamers, I'd say your approach to things was probably less than optimal to be honest. I'm not going to question the wisdom of playing a spellfire weilder as your first FR character, but the second example there wasn't necessarily the best answer you could have gone for. I can understand frustration, but telling them she didn't care pretty bluntly said this adventure doesn't really matter if the powers that be aren't bothered by it... it was considerably less than diplomatic, and kind of undercuts the idea that what they were doing was important or mattered. It'd be a definite momentum killer for me to. As to example number three, a simple "you don't need to know that" would have sufficed probably, since it raises all sorts of metagaming issues... though I wonder what you told them that they'd even wonder about that if you're only three hours into the game. But there's also the issue of having at least one player who's trying to second-guess the DM, which is never good in any game, regardless.
I'm not saying this to be a prick or to be overly critical, since obviously I have no first hand experience with your games, but in some respects it kinda sounds, from the little you've mentioned, that the problems lie with the group and its expectations, and not the setting itself. If they're expecting you to run games 100% faithful to the novels and canon then you've got problems that go well beyond fluff and mechanics.
Frankly, I got tired of hand-holding noobs as well; and let me clarify: not newbies, but noobs. If people cannot be bothered to learn to play before they turn into problem players, whether they misunderstand the concept of adventuring, or relying on one's own party, or thinking they know everything about a canon world and how that "should" apply 1:1 within a game setting, then they can find another group to play with. Life is too short to hand-hold people through life, much less hand-hold them through a game. And honestly, it's not so much about being "new" as it is dealing with a "noob" personality type: those who expect hand-holding, or don't bother learning how to play, or they metagame, and then want to be in charge.
The same "problem" occurs in online games I've played, like World of Warcraft, in that someone wants to join your guild and then begs incessantly for money, or run-throughs, or whatnot. There's a sense of entitlement that they should be helped through everything because they "know" they'd be awesome playing with experienced gamers, or they lie about their experience; and they're more than willing to tell you that X and Y happened in the novels, and that you're RPing something inappropriately (and they're wrong) when they don't know how to use the basic skills of their characters. At some point, you just have to say to the person "I'm sorry, but this isn't the guild / group / setting for you" and give them the boot unless they have a change of heart and actually learn the damn game. It's not a "legit problem" with the game, or the setting, or with experienced players being "mean," it's a problem with "noobs" (again: not "newbies") who impose their sense of entitlement onto the game and the DMs who let them.
I'm feeling how you're rolling with that. QFMFT
Example:
Prince Telamont Tanthul, the head of the Shade Empire, is CR 38. That's right, he is Challenge Rating 38. That means he consumes approximately 1/4 of the resources of a 38th level party when he is faced...ALONE.
With an AC of around 70, and saves in the high 30s, the only way you're ever going to get rid of this bozo in your game is to find a way around his ridiculous number of protections, minions, and contingent spells.
Realistically, if I sheeted this guy out, my PC's would all DIE. There would be no way to stop him from researching spells of "Kill Tom, Dick, and Harry specific to their own personal blood samples" and casting them in his living room.
The problem is that their view of events is "Story Driven." They want to tell stories that are driven by the needs of the story.
But my game, and other games like it, are Character Driven. The needs of the story are determined by the actions of the characters.
D+D is supposed to reward intelligent thinking, but realistically, the way the game is designed, even in 4th edition, there's no way to defeat something that's 14-15 Crs above you.
The problem is, the amount of time it would take to get to a point where this individual can be realistically challenged is absurd. Even my PC's who have played the game for years top out at around 23-25.
If they built the characters more logically, and kept them in the high 20's, like the other characters in the gameworld, then there might be less of a problem, but the problem with I see is the character sheets as they propose them, and not with the actual characters themselves.
I don't recall Markus ever saying it was all about XP and levelling... his point, if I understood it correctly, was that if the players are essentially going to abdicate their role in an adventure and run to someone else to fix things, why are they even bothering with playing D&D. You're supposed to be out there getting heroic and adventurous, and there's little in the way of either when you run off to Elminster or Mirt or whoever and ask them to clean the mess up for you. If you're constantly doing that, you are indeed missing what amounts to the core tenet of playing the game in the first place. Its got nothing to do with XP or levels, its got everything to do with the basic premise of the game.
Stigger 'gets me'. :D
Put it this way - when you play Monopoly, you don't go and let all the other players buy all the properties... "because it's just easier to pay them rent". When you play clue, you don't pass on your turn to ask questions, because you feel one of the other players is further along and can probably answer the 'big question' quicker.
The object of a game isn't to "get it over with"- it never is. Even when your losing, you still need to be a good sport and let the other person have their day. I'm just not getting this "lets get someone else to have the adventure" attitude.
Thats about as enjoyable as intercourse was with my ex - "hurry-up and lets get this over with".
Yeahhhhhh... I SO want to play that.
Anyhow, how interesting would the Lord of the Rings have been, if Gandalf had just ridden that Giant Eagle into Mordor and dropped the friggin' ring into Mount Doom on page one?
Sure he could of done it... and we would have missed all the fun along the way. The fun is ALWAYS in the journey, not the destination.
Thats not just true of games, but of just about everything worth doing in life.
Having said that... GMforPowergamers, I'd say your approach to things was probably less than optimal to be honest. I'm not going to question the wisdom of playing a spellfire weilder as your first FR character,
well I told the gm I had an idea for an adventureer that didn't want to be a warrior...he gave me the spellfire rules to look over and the idea of being hunted...and that was a good game
but the second example there wasn't necessarily the best answer you could have gone for. I can understand frustration, but telling them she didn't care pretty bluntly said this adventure doesn't really matter if the powers that be aren't bothered by it
my stand point was that a LN god of magic shouldn't care about one nation of spell casters being evil and invading...they were advanceing magic...and useing magic...and paying her atleast lip service...then again since I only read a small snipit on her as LN...BUT the players new her as a NG adventureer in a novel I never read...that was the problme
... it was considerably less than diplomatic, and kind of undercuts the idea that what they were doing was important or mattered. It'd be a definite momentum killer for me to.
I on the other hand would never expect a god to care...
As to example number three, a simple "you don't need to know that" would have sufficed probably, since it raises all sorts of metagaming issues... though I wonder what you told them that they'd even wonder about that if you're only three hours into the game. But there's also the issue of having at least one player who's trying to second-guess the DM, which is never good in any game, regardless.
the main problme with this is that I don't care about blackstaff...the plot did not need him at all...it was the PCs job to do the adventure...not the NPCs
I'm not saying this to be a prick or to be overly critical, since obviously I have no first hand experience with your games, but in some respects it kinda sounds, from the little you've mentioned, that the problems lie with the group and its expectations, and not the setting itself. If they're expecting you to run games 100% faithful to the novels and canon then you've got problems that go well beyond fluff and mechanics.
Yeahhhhhh... I SO want to play that.
Anyhow, how interting would the Lord of the Rings have been, if Gandalf had just ridden that Giant Eagle into Mordor and dropped the friggin' ring into Mount Doom on page one?
Sure he could of done it... and we would have missed all the fun along the way. The fun is ALWAYS in the journey, not the destination.
Thats not just true of games, but of just about everything woirth doing in life.
That goes without saying. Still, I think players who want to seek out El & co. don't do so because they don't want to have the adventure themselves, but because they feel it would be the logical thing for their characters to do. Let's say a bunch of characters who just found out the BBEG is up to something not quite nice face tough opposition should they confront him on their own. From an in-game point of view, when much is at stake and help readily available, it'd take morons, not heroes, to not utilize this help, especially when nothing's in it for them.
Movies come up all the time with a reason for their protagonists to not go to the police; so should players in collaboration with the GM *shrug*
DB
If they built the characters more logically, and kept them in the high 20's, like the other characters in the gameworld, then there might be less of a problem, but the problem with I see is the character sheets as they propose them, and not with the actual characters themselves.
They already solved this problem on day one of the release of 3rd Edition.
DM's then -as now- were empowered to adjust the level and relative power of NPCs to suit the needs of a DM and his or her campaign.
Things were never set in stone.
Ever.
I know, I'm evil for not caring about the newbs and their feelings, but that's the sort of mood I'm in.
Well, I do care about them, and I often try to help them by (a) explaining how the world they're trying to play in actually works, and (b) advising on what might help the specific social or communication problem in a particular game. Beats me how else to do it.
Insisting that every high level character is busy or just doesn't care to deal with a problem in their own backyard is plausible once or twice, but after a while it gets old.
It's also quite unnecessary to always do that, unless you're trying to run a game in the 'just PCs and villains' style I mentioned above, which other settings are indeed better suited for.
I HATE the amount of NPCs that my PCs know better then I do becuse they are 'fans'
The thing is, the player knowledge you mention -- that Mystra wouldn't allow that bracelet, that one can talk directly to gods via a mere plane shift and that Mystra herself* would directly intervene in Faerûn because they petitioned her, that (?) Elminster is usually in Shadowdale and opens his door to strangers, that Khelben Arunsun is able to control all intrigue in Waterdeep -- is almost all wildly wrong. Your players thought they knew better than you, but they didn't. The problems you had, you had, and I'm not minimizing them. But if you'd been able to talk to someone who did know the Realms, they might have been able to explain how your players' metagaming (and the quite false 'Justice League' characterization that you seem to have picked up from them) was not supported by Realmslore, which might have given you the confidence to stop them trying to DM for you.
* (As an aside, the player's mistake there was to assume that the new Mystra was just a deified Ariel Manx. In fact, her personality became a mere part of, and was greatly transfigured by, the larger goddess, Weave, and overall divine system that she joined.)
There are just too many opportunities to get from one place to the next or to get in contact with someone, and they're too easy to come by and too easy to use.
It's for much this reason that for every spell Ed wrote that translocated or farscryed or traced, he wrote one that warded, masked, confused or trapped, and introduced widespread permanent wards and variations in the Weave that make such magic much more dangerous and problematic to use in the Realms than going just by the PH.
Of course, this isn't something a newcomer would know, because these spells are scattered across so many books, and TSR deliberately didn't try to lay out the basic shape and workings of Faerûnian magic, so as to leave options open for authors. Which is an example of, if nothing else, how difficult it is to publish and convey a shared imaginary world of any complexity.
From an in-game point of view, when much is at stake and help readily available, it'd take morons, not heroes, to not utilize this help, especially when nothing's in it for them.
And as you note above, the mistake is to think help will be readily available very often -- that this is any kind of easy way out. Let's remember -- and this also reflects on msatran's post about Shadovar power levels -- that the Knights of Myth Drannor, our prototypical Realms adventuring band, was often able to punch above its weight by, in fact, gaining the help of various senior Harpers; and that even though they were friends with some of them, this wasn't achieved by asking them -- which would rarely work, for reasons that have been mentioned. How?
Let's also remember that Realms characters with a 'G' in their alignment are not all purely virtuous, and they're anything but a uniform force. Two random 'good' characters will have more divergent and even conflicting aims than common ones.
Manipulating others, as Ed keeps reminding us, is what people do.
I think people don't really understand the problem GMforPowergamers is talking about. Emotionally remove yourself from the debate for a moment and think about it logically.
We aren't talking about people who know a lot about FR here, and we aren't talking about people who know how to play the game. Think back to when you started playing for the first time. I'm sure you can come up with all sorts of things that'd either make you cringe or wonder what the hell you were thinking. Others might even make you giggle at how ridiculous it was...
We're talking about people coming to D&D and FR the game for the first time, mostly. They are most likely familiar with the novels, which is why they pick up the setting. Being familiar with the novels means that they're familiar with the iconics.
If you put yourself in those shoes, it makes perfect sense to run to Elminster when there is a problem. Why wouldn't you? Sure, it's not the point of being an adventurer and all the obvious arguments that have been made... but you know nothing about that. You're a total newbie.
Actually, Meldread, I must say that back when I first learned about the Realms and Elminster (and characters like him), I didn't think it'd be a good idea to just run to these characters if there was a problem. Even back when I was a complete newbie, I still knew that "powerful people" typically don't want to indulge just anybody who comes running up to them with a problem--and that's assuming you can even get their attention in the first place. The usual route in most games (even in video games) is that you have to go to more accessible and more local authorities first (unless you can simply take care of the problem yourself, in which case, you do!).
I'm not saying it's not possible or even uncommon for a newbie to think the way you've described. It might be common. However, it wouldn't be accurate to imply that every newbie starts off thinking that way, because I didn't--and I doubt I'd be alone in that.
Yes my player base is a part of the problme...When I play I don't want 'midnight and her jusctice league' anywhere near the game...I want to be the hero...
There shouldn't be a problem, then, since "Midnight and her JL" exists as an internet meme, not something in the actual setting as described by the sourcebooks.
I read your entire post, and I am convinced that in your case the problem you experienced was with the players and not with the setting.
Movies come up all the time with a reason for their protagonists to not go to the police; so should players in collaboration with the GM *shrug*
yea...if in real life you knew of a terrorist attack would you call homeland security...or go grab a gun and handle it yourself...what if you were trained as a cop??? does that make it diffrent??
The thing is, the player knowledge you mention -- that Mystra wouldn't allow that bracelet, that one can talk directly to gods via a mere plane shift and that Mystra herself* would directly intervene in Faerûn because they petitioned her,
if she is really a such a streatch if she gets involved in the novels...that is the problme...they have there precedents...
tElminster is usually in Shadowdale and opens his door to strangers,
so what happens when shadow dale is under attack?
that Khelben Arunsun is able to control all intrigue in Waterdeep
getting past any high level magic user is hard in D&D...but one with BOTH a god and a secret socoity of do gooderson there side on top of epic spells...
is almost all wildly wrong.
good...but it is a reacuring thought readers have...this is not 1 game with 1 set of players...this is atleast 7 games through 2 and a half edtions...all but one ended badly becuse of it...no one person other then me was in EVERY game...
then I come on here and here other stories...if alot of people get it wrong... then it is an easy mistake to make
Your players thought they knew better than you, but they didn't. The problems you had, you had, and I'm not minimizing them. But if you'd been able to talk to someone who did know the Realms, they might have been able to explain how your players' metagaming (and the quite false 'Justice League' characterization that you seem to have picked up from them) was not supported by Realmslore, which might have given you the confidence to stop them trying to DM for you.
ok maybe...but for the recorde the Justice leage comment is a joke from me and the guy that runs my LGS...after I asked him for help he told me he herd it before then we made up the joke...EVERYONE I know who read the books tell me it is wrong...but even people who say it is wrong have played in games where they stoped it with "BUt is book XXX"
* (As an aside, the player's mistake there was to assume that the new Mystra was just a deified Ariel Manx. In fact, her personality became a mere part of, and was greatly transfigured by, the larger goddess, Weave, and overall divine system that she joined.)
first I thought her name was midnight? was that wrong???
second I was told the following happened in the book she accended...
AO (The OVERdeity) told elminster to stop helping her she had to learn on her own
Elminster said he would then went behind AO's back and helped anyway...
So there was enough of her left to need to learn to be a deity...and one of her chosen knew more and had to walk her through stuff????
now that maybe wrong I don't know...but uf it is even close to right it gives a HUMAN MAGE enough power to teach a god...AND defy an overdeity...
how am I suppose to make 'him' buisy? what happens if I WANT the PCs to be doing something earth (Troil) shakeing...then why WOULDN'T he get involved...it is earth shakeing..
Let's also remember that Realms characters with a 'G' in their alignment are not all purely virtuous, and they're anything but a uniform force. Two random 'good' characters will have more divergent and even conflicting aims than common ones.
what about the harpers...you know a whole orgnization that ties several powerhouse G characters togather...
If I was running a superhero game in the DCU, and my story started in NY city and it started with some street crime...a bank robbery...then we intro some supervillions...all good right...
then I do an alien invasion story...and the PCs say "Where is the JLA?" I can stop that with "This is your title...they are buisy"
then I do a mystic story about devils and demons...they ask "Where is Zureal...Zatanna...Etrigune...Blue devil?" I say "Your titel they are buisy"
then I do a time travel villian...they say "Where is rip hunter, waverider, hell what about booster"
at what point is it not really the DCU???
(If you can't tell i am a comic fan)
in the comics there is a new Batman run called RIP...part way in batman is missing, and might be dead, or worse may be out of his mind running around the streets...Robin calls in the calvery...a bunch of batman like characters he created. Most of the same people I know get a good laugh that Robin forgot to call his own teammates the titans...or Batmans allies int he JL...in an RPG there is no way I could tell a player "Um call less powerful help" but becuse the writer wanted it...he did it.
In an RPG we don't control the players we control the world...the world of the forgotten realms needs a LOT more control then others...
I can run any game I want in ebberon...why not in the realms...same players...some are fans of BOTH novel series...so what is the diffrence?
edit:
I have run ebberon, Spelljammer, Birthright, Greyhawk, and darksun...oh and like a billion homebrews...only the FR has this problme
I'm not saying -everyone- who is new starts off thinking that way. I am just saying that, if you're completely new to D&D as a game then... it makes some logical sense if you know -something- about the setting.
For an experienced DM it's pretty trivial, even if sometimes a bit annoying. It's no different than setting something up for the players, and then having them go run and warn the Purple Dragons. If it happens unexpectantly, then you have to quickly come up with, on the spot, a reason the Purple Dragon's wouldn't want to get involved.
The matter grows more complicated if the DM is a newbie, and it is even more complex if the player knows more about the setting than the DM. Then they're running to people and organizations that you might not know anything about!
Yet, if you hear about a Goblin Tribe preparing to attack a village or something, it makes complete sense to go warn the Purple Dragons. Just as it makes perfect sense to run and warn Elminster that the Zhents are planning an assault on Shadowdale.
You add to that an inexperienced DM or a DM unfamiliar with the setting with players who have some knowledge of it, and you're just asking for difficulties.
what about the harpers...you know a whole orgnization that ties several powerhouse G characters togather...
Since you asked: the Harpers don't all agree with each other on everything, and there's no reason to assume that whatever Harpers the PCs could manage to contact (it usually works the other way around, by the way) would agree with helping the PCs. Remember--the Harpers work to maintain a balance in things, and the organization consists of good and neutral characters. They might actually find reason to work against the PCs if what the PCs are doing conflicts with their own goals.
if she is really a such a streatch if she gets involved in the novels...that is the problme...they have there precedents...
There are precedents for gods directly acting in Faerûn, but not because mortals (except perhaps their most favoured servants) asked them, not unless their portfolios are directly concerned, and overall very rarely in the scheme of things, as you can tell by reading The Grand History of the Realms. I don't know what your zulkir was planning, but if gods answered adventurers' prayers every time they faced a mage of power they didn't like -- or one in a hundred times -- Faerûn would have been waste for millennia.
Your player was making a huge leap to think the 'tell Mystra' plan even had a chance to work, and was downright moon-witted (not to mention presumptuous) to assume that it would.
so what happens when shadow dale is under attack?
Elminster is very often ('more or less continuously', per his original write-up) travelling the endless worlds. When he is in Faerûn, yes, chances are he'd come to his beloved Dale's aid. So you can easily have him elsewhere, or around to help (as he was against more than one Zhent army), as you choose.
People in Faerûn know that mages of power are prone to worldwalk, lock themselves away to study, put themselves in stasis, imprison trespassers or turn them into frogs, and other such eccentric things. The Old Sage's (and that's what he's primarily known as) 'No Trespassing. Violators should notify next of kin' sign isn't a garden gnome.
getting past any high level magic user is hard in D&D...but one with BOTH a god and a secret socoity of do gooderson there side on top of epic spells...
You're underestimating the scale of Waterdeep. This is a city known across the North for its intrigues. The Lords, the Watchful Order, local Harpers (to the extent they're working with the Lords and not against them; see below) and any other like-minded folk are outnumbered scores to one by scheming merchants, nobles, and various cabals; at any given time dozens of major difficulties beset the safety of the city and its citizens. Khelben would love everyone to think he Knew All, but he doesn't, and a handful of 9th-level spells a day don't allow him to. He has no more hours in the day than anyone else, and he has to split them between his civic duties, personal manipulations, his service to Mystra, reading books and magical tomes, crafting spells, teaching apprentices, living his life with Laeral, and taking a rest once in a while.
We have an excellent look at how this works in The City of Splendors: A Waterdeep Novel, as well as in parts of Silverfall and Elminster in Hell.
good...but it is a reacuring thought readers have...this is not 1 game with 1 set of players...this is atleast 7 games through 2 and a half edtions...all but one ended badly becuse of it...no one person other then me was in EVERY game...
then I come on here and here other stories...if alot of people get it wrong... then it is an easy mistake to make
Yes, it probably is. For instance, one sees how you could read a short write-up of Waterdeep, which only has space to mention a few of its citizens, and think that they're overwhelmingly important and powerful when they're not. But more than that, ideas have lives of their own, and there are apparently prevalent notions about the Realms that very people would get from just reading some of the books.
If the hassle of dealing with players who tell you how to run your campaign -- whether they're right or wrong in terms of the published lore -- is bigger for you than the advantages for you of using that setting, you may well be wise not using it.
ok maybe...but for the recorde the Justice leage comment is a joke from me and the guy that runs my LGS...after I asked him for help he told me he herd it before then we made up the joke...
Yeah, I've heard it before too . . .
first I thought her name was midnight? was that wrong???
Not wrong. One's her given name, the other her assumed name.
now that maybe wrong I don't know...but uf it is even close to right it gives a HUMAN MAGE enough power to teach a god...AND defy an overdeity...
It's not a matter of power, but knowledge. Once Midnight's small human soul joined with the larger Mystra, she needed to be taught very quickly by Azuth, Dornal the Watcher and her Chosen, who had centuries of knowledge of the Weave. I'm not aware of Ao forbidding Elminster to teach her, or him defying Ao over it.
how am I suppose to make 'him' buisy? what happens if I WANT the PCs to be doing something earth (Troil) shakeing...then why WOULDN'T he get involved...it is earth shakeing..
Because there's a good chance he's on another world entirely. But yes, if you have a plot that affects the whole world, lots of NPCs, if they know about it, are going to get involved, as with any other D&D setting. Which could be fun, but personally I wouldn't use the Realms for such a campaign -- I think it works better for low- and mid-level itinerant adventuring.
what about the harpers...you know a whole orgnization that ties several powerhouse G characters togather...
The Harpers are anything but a uniform force. They're a loosely organized (even in the more formal western branch) gathering of generally chaotic good, independent-minded types like bards and rangers who work -- mainly through gathering information, behind the scenes, alone or in small groups -- against threats to their own idiosyncratic ideas of peace, freedom and balance, whether they're slavers, orcs, too-powerful or too-rigid human kingdoms, aggressive merchant groups or greedy adventurers. They've had major disagreements with governments of all 'alignments' and within their own ranks, with the splitting off of the Heralds and the division into two groups with divergent philosophies in 1370 DR.
(If you can't tell i am a comic fan)
But the Realms isn't a comic-book world, with a line-up of heroes who spend all their time selflessly fighting a line-up of villains and monsters.
In an RPG we don't control the players we control the world...the world of the forgotten realms needs a LOT more control then others...
More than some, less than others. More than a less populated setting, with less-than-D&D communication magic, or with a smaller stratum of influential characters and organizations. That includes Eberron, which is specifically, artificially designed to have fewer high-level characters, and to a much lesser extent the World of Greyhawk (which is far less detailed and has fewer of them published). The Realms does have a lot -- priesthoods (which have been relatively neglected in Realmslore, except for that of . . . what was the thread title again?), national and mercenary armies, trading costers, myriad adventuring companies, which loom far larger in Faerûn's politics and lives than the handful of 'iconic' characters. It's busy -- but at the same time, far less busy than it might seem looking at the wall map, since that's a continent larger than North America with, for almost the whole population, no transport or communication faster than horses. Conversely, it's less complex to run large-scale plots in (for any given level of 'realism') than the Planescape setting, and much less than any version of modern Earth.
I had something longer posted here, but I edited it out. Rather than explain my reasoning, I'd encourage you to explain to me in all the ways the two situations are different, and then explain to me in how they are the same. I'd be interested in seeing how you could come to a different conclusion, because it is pretty cut and dry in my opinion.
-Mystra's relative importance to the setting was "built in" from the beginning, so to speak, whereas Shar's was not. Rather, her relative importance was raised to an equally high level, in a relative short amount of time, thus, the cause for my distaste and dislike. Beforehand, I liked Shar. Now, not so much.
Since you asked: the Harpers don't all agree with each other on everything, and there's no reason to assume that whatever Harpers the PCs could manage to contact (it usually works the other way around, by the way) would agree with helping the PCs.
ok...so when the PCs tell you they want to take the prestige class for a harper what do you do? ...
Remember--the Harpers work to maintain a balance in things, and the organization consists of good and neutral characters. They might actually find reason to work against the PCs if what the PCs are doing conflicts with their own goals.
so teh harpers in my thy invasion might side with thy?
what about when my drow arch wizard wants to remake the 10th level spell to kill a god and take there stuff (Nethriel adventure)...and is sending undead out to seek such knowladge...well I guess the harpers might be on his side?
don't make me laugh I have read no novel that had real Harpers n it that I can think of...but the rule book tells me they would apose that...
what about a shade of Nethile trying to pull a small army of shadow demons (BoVD) to invade the dale lands...
Once again in small stories the realms were fine...as we build to high level and into epic...then the problmes come in...
How do I tell an earth shakeing story that the power house are not involved in...
ok...so when the PCs tell you they want to take the prestige class for a harper what do you do? ...
-Say 'no'. I've said it before, and I'll likely say it more in the future.
Really, you have no one to blame for your lack of enjoyment but yourself. It is perfectly fine and acceptable to dislike how things have been handled, or to dislike certain events / regions / NPC's / whatever. However, 4th Edition Forgotten Realm's has a very different design than previous editions. The entire setting is more... customizable... to your tastes. WotC did not give you the setting and expect you to use it exactly as printed, they created the setting in such a way to allow you to mold it to suit your needs.
I forgot to respond to this, but this isn't an effective counter argument at all for me as it sounds distinctly like the usual "You are just being lazy" argument employed by certain people here when they get into a corner (just applied differently). Firstly, there is a definitely and very reasonable complaint that being undetailed is not going to suit some DMs in particular and will not aid them.
Foril not being detailed aids my campaign a lot, but Foril not having the same details as he might in say 3rd edition makes things more difficult for other DMs. I spend most of my free time outside of my PhD and such forth writing DnD and preparing my games. This is because I want to invest my free time into it, instead of other activities like playing video games, watching TV or similar.
Just because the setting is "customisable" doesn't mean that it isn't a huge problem if you don't have the time or perhaps creativity to make use of that. A good smattering of detailed cities, NPCs and such can give a DM a lot of direction as to the theme, feeling and direction the game should go in the setting. In my case, 4E is vastly superior because I now feel I have complete control over all those aspects as I've been given control of most aspects of the game. In someone elses case it's a massive disadvantage, because it's a lot more groundwork to go on in establishing many of these things for themselves.
It's taken me 2 weeks of really solid writing on my holiday to put everything I want into my campaigns, re-read my books and really get a solid idea on how I want every campaign I run to go from 1st to 30th level. The FRCG is a good resource for this, because it does the basics so incredibly well that I can see where things are and then easily fit (mentally) everything else in.
However, as the likes of Therise mentioned to me, if you don't use things like Netheril in the game you are not using a lot of the material that is given good detail in the actual book itself. This means without using Shar/Netheril you have to do a lot of groundwork yourself in establishing other villains, establishing what Netheril (and in fact a host of antagonists, including the Abolethic Sovereignty) are going to do in response to various things. Without the detail there, someone has to do a lot of work getting this running and making sure it all fits together.
If that work was already done by the designers, it's a big advantage in time and other things (which is why many people liked those high level NPCs and detailed supplements/novels in the realms and how it could aid your game considerably). Without this, it's a big disadvantage if you don't have the time to fix it yourself and it's hard to just say "well its customisable" as a defense of that lack of detail. You need the time and inclination to "customise" it in the first place.
ok...so when the PCs tell you they want to take the prestige class for a harper what do you do? ...
No offense but I don't see the relevance this question has to this discussion.
so teh harpers in my thy invasion might side with thy?
Huh?
don't make me laugh I have read no novel that had real Harpers n it that I can think of...but the rule book tells me they would apose that...
Don't make you laugh? I'm just trying to help you, but instead you're just being flippant with me and flinging my answers back in my face. So, nevermind...sorry I bothered.
Don't make you laugh? I'm just trying to help you, but instead you're just being flippant with me and flinging my answers back in my face. So, nevermind...sorry I bothered.
sorry if I cam off flippant...but it just didn't seam like help...it seamed more like you were telling me like several here do that the problme doesn't exsist...
the long and short of it is this:
If a problme shows itself atleast somewhat often in diffrent groups across the US...then don't WotC have to decide wheather they want to deal with it...?
sorry if I cam off flippant...but it just didn't seam like help...it seamed more like you were telling me like several here do that the problme doesn't exsist...
All I did was tell you a little bit about the Harpers in an attempt to explain that they aren't a monolithic group. Faraer is trying to do the same thing. No one is saying you didn't have a problem, but by the same token you also have to realize that the problems you've experienced haven't been everybody else's problems.
All that said, if my answer "didn't seem like help", then what kind of help do you want from me? Did you just want me to affirm everything you're saying? If that's the case, sorry, but I'm not going to do that for you. I have my own opinions about things, and if I read something that I don't think is accurate I will say so.
However, as the likes of Therise mentioned to me, if you don't use things like Netheril in the game you are not using a lot of the material that is given good detail in the actual book itself. This means without using Shar/Netheril you have to do a lot of groundwork yourself in establishing other villains, establishing what Netheril (and in fact a host of antagonists, including the Abolethic Sovereignty) are going to do in response to various things.
Or you can just handwave it off.
If your players aren't going to bring it up or they aren't the wiser, it's not an issue.
Also, The Shades and Shar are not "more detailed" in the FRCG than any other evil group.
Netheril gets two pages. Contrast this with Cormyr, which got four pages.
Shar has her one entry, just like the other greater deities.
Therise' description and conclusion regarding a DM not using The Shades doesn't follow, because it doesn't fit the facts.
ok...so when the PCs tell you they want to take the prestige class for a harper what do you do? ...
I'd say 'Ask me again when you've met one, won her trust, and become a member.'
so teh harpers in my thy invasion might side with thy?
Only if they thought furthering Thay's tyrannical dominance was a good idea.
How do I tell an earth shakeing story that the power house are not involved in...
I'm failing to imagine what kind of populated world would be shaken and everyone except the PCs ignored it.
-Mystra's relative importance to the setting was "built in" from the beginning, so to speak, whereas Shar's was not. Rather, her relative importance was raised to an equally high level, in a relative short amount of time, thus, the cause for my distaste and dislike. Beforehand, I liked Shar. Now, not so much.
That's not true. Mystra's importance was directly tied to Shar's importance. The Shar-Selune-Mystra conflict has been a central theme of the setting since... well for as long as I can remember, at least. Over time, Selune became a third wheel and dropped out, making it a Shar-Mystra conflict.
It's certainly true that Shar began to get more face time in 3E onward. Yet, more time in novels and such does not indicate a lack of importance to the setting.
We should be thankful that Shar was spared under the reign of TSR. Otherwise, she would have been turned into a bumbling goddess who would eventually lack any creditability at all. TSR single handedly ruined the Zhents, Red Wizards, Cyric and a number of other villainous groups and characters / deities.
If not for TSR's "evil must never win" policy (which translated into: "evil must be stupid") Shar and Netheril would have never come to the forefront in the first place. The -only- reason the Shades were brought into the Realms at the beginning of 3E was because the Zhents and other such groups had lost all creditability as villains. That's the reason they went out of their way to show the Shades and Shar as competent and successful in what they did.
It is this mindset that also led to 4th Edition and the drastic changes to the Realm's. It is also this mindset that led to the many negative opinions of Mystra, the Harpers, and other such good aligned groups.
Obviously, this is also a matter of perception: For every failure the Zhents or Red Wizard's experienced, they experienced two successes. Yet it was never shown in sourcebooks or novels.
Ed Greenwood himself admited that TSR ended up turning the Zhents and other villainous groups into Keystone Cops (his words, not mine).
----
Aegeri-
Mr_Miscellany covered part of what you said, but I do realize that some of what you wrote is partly true. However, if someone is so strapped for time that they cannot manage to write out one or two pages to replace a single region, and fill in or modify the details of a few others... then they are probably running published adventures anyway.
The FRCG was designed with a modular world in mind. Just read "NOT "FR"? NO PROBLEM!" on page four.
The finer details are irrelevant if you are not doing anything in those regions. I do not know of a single DM who can micromanage at that level, who can keep track of the goings on in every village, nation and NPC of relevance to the game world.
Thus, all you need is a general overview of the regions you are playing in, and then fill in only the most immediate areas that your players will be in... a handful of pages, really. And there is nothing wrong with using old material, stealing information wholesale from it, changing the names of NPC's and place names, and setting it in a different location.
It might lack personal touch and the finer polish that a good DM might normally like... but it works in a pinch. Especially if all it exists for is irrelevant backdrop.
It is too easy for a DM, and I speak from personal experience, to get caught up in the finer details that will never be experienced in any way shape or form in the game.
Or you can just handwave it off.
If your players aren't going to bring it up or they aren't the wiser, it's not an issue.
Also, The Shades and Shar are not "more detailed" in the FRCG than any other evil group.
Netheril gets two pages. Contrast this with Cormyr, which got four pages.
Shar has her one entry, just like the other greater deities.
Therise' description and conclusion regarding a DM not using The Shades doesn't follow, because it doesn't fit the facts.
And if you're the type of person who can't stand handwaving, on principle? I can think of several people who'd probably tear their hair out at the very idea of not accounting for their absence. Some people just can't think that way, and never will, its just not the way their built.
@ GMforPowergamers
No one is saying you don't have a problem. They're just saying your problem isn't the setting itself necessarily, but the way you're approaching the setting, and perhaps the stories you're trying to tell in it. I guess it comes down to the idea that certain settings lend themselves to certain types of stories, but not really to others.
Its like trying to run a happy and lighthearted story about sylvan creatures and fey in the Ravenloft or Dark Sun setting... sure, you could technically, but it wouldn't make much sense, since it doesn't really fit the theme or premise of either setting. In the same sense, telling certain types of stories in the Realms are going to be limited by the logic and theme of the setting. Sure you could run a world shattering event in the Realms, but doing so requires some thought put to where it might happen that none of the problems you mentioned are going to come up.
Running it in the Dales or Cormyr is going to involve a lot of different factions getting wind of it, and so becomes impractical as a location, whereas running it in the Shaar or on the Shining Plains isn't going to involve much of anyone outside of the villains and the PCs, and maybe a wemic tribe or something similar. Some stories can be run anywhere, and some need to be run in places where that interference you're talking about isn't going to happen. Really, that's going to be true in any setting. Really, this is going to be true in 4e just as much as it ever was in previous editions.
Just think about your Waterdeep/Khelben problem. Consider how many cabals, costers, societies, and individuals are all working towards their own ends in the city. Consider also the possibility of Khelben dismissing the PCs out of hand, since if he hadn't heard of it by now, then its not really that big of a threat, at least not yet. Maybe he doesn't take them seriously, maybe he thinks they're spies or agents of something or other trying to distract him from other events, maybe he just doesn't give their words credence because he just doesn't like the look of them. Maybe he decides they look competant enough to handle it themselves, hands them a note to give to a blackrobe in case they get in trouble with the watch, and tells them to deal with it, and to kindly let him know when they've taken care of it, he might have something for them to do if they handle the situation well enough. Make it clear that if they run to him for help, he's going to look at them as future pawns and lackies to run errands for him, and let them decide if that's what they want out of their dealings with him in the future. Look at it not only as an opportunity to give them a patron, but also a potential plot hook, as they get targetted by hostile groups as Khelben's agents, whether they are or not. Or maybe he just ignores them entirely and goes on dealing with other threats, so they don't have a choice but to deal with things on their own if they really want to stop this threat. There's tons of ways to neutralize him as an element without seeming to and upsetting the PCs in the process, who might have just been looking to interact with a famous NPC.
As to that example of yours about terrorists and homeland security... its a different societal setup. Here, the average citizen isn't equipped or trained to handle that sort of threat, and to be honest, most individual police officers aren't either. The nature of our society, its belief in the rule of law, and even the structures and ideas behind our government are such that it wouldn't even occur to most folks to even try. Its just not the way most people think, no matter what the movies say about it. Life just doesn't work that way for your average citizen. The Realms, and indeed most other fantasy/sci-fi settings operate under a different societal premise, so the example doesn't really follow.
I know, I know, most aren't, but that's not the point here.
People that felt that Mystra and he JSR (Justice Society of the Realms) overshadowed PCs. They could have been right in some cases. I would have just told them to ignore it or remove the NPCs themselves. I would not tell people who miss the NPCs to add them back in. Both groups should just use their ample imaginations to get over it. The haters of the old should have just learned to work through it and the haters of the new should do the same. This is all my opinion of course. Do whatever ya want.
That's not true. Mystra's importance was directly tied to Shar's importance. The Shar-Selune-Mystra conflict has been a central theme of the setting since... well for as long as I can remember, at least. Over time, Selune became a third wheel and dropped out, making it a Shar-Mystra conflict.
-Mystra's role in the conflict between Selûne and Shar was always minimal, until recently. The conflict was centered between Selûne and Shar, primarily. The Time of Troubles arc in the Forgotten Realms comic, for example, feature Shar and Selûne doing battle. Selûne is listed as Shar's chief opponent, and Shar is listed as Selûne's chief opponent.
It's certainly true that Shar began to get more face time in 3E onward. Yet, more time in novels and such does not indicate a lack of importance to the setting.
-More activity in novels, and sourcebooks, translates into more activity in the setting. In the setting, Shar has done and accomplished more in the last four years of Realmslore than she had in, say, the previous four years in Realmslore, or, arguably, the entire run that the setting has had since it debuted, with the current date of the 1e era.
And if you're the type of person who can't stand hand waving, on principle?
Good question.
In my opinion “you” would be in a minority. Tiny one at that.
There's only so much time a given DM has per day to plan for game. I believe for most DMs and players, not having the big picture figured out ahead of time is a non-issue. Plus, such things usually sort themselves out as a campaign advances anyway.
However some DMs are completists. Those that are, well it probably doesn't matter how much information a sourcebook gives them: They'll still fill in the cracks anyway, especially as they develop the plot underlying their Realms campaign.
Any campaign setting will give DMs a slew of bad guys/evil organizations to play with. DMs who opt not to use one or more of these groups and who are also themselves completists would naturally have to account for them, but that’s mostly background work and not something that will come up in game.
In fact, for the type of DM in question, that would be the point of his/her efforts.
This is why not using Shar or The Shades in a typical 4E Game is a non-issue. The Shades and the Church of Shar are two of several powerful evil groups that exist in the Realms along with the Abolethic Sovereignty, Manshoon’s Zhentarim, the Church of Bane, The Court of Rorn, The Cult of the Dragon, The Eminence of Aurant and so on.
I don’t believe any of these groups are so pervasive and widespread that their lack of inclusion in a typical 4E Realms game would necessitate the same DM work required for having to account for the Chosen, etc...in a 2E or 3E Realms game.
But that’s just my opinion. ;)
Hope you are in a better mood, btw.
I think I am going to simply repeat myself here. I don't really see anyone disagreeing with my underlying point(s).
1. Yes, Shar became more prominent in the source in recent years. This cannot be disputed, yet she was always a prominent and important goddess. Nothing has changed in that regard, with the exception of her actually getting more face time.
2. We only get to see a small portion of what is going on in the Realms at any one time. It is like looking through a window - you can only see one room. Lathander, Kossuth, Kelemvor, Hoar, Ilmater, all of those deities and their followers are also active in the Realms. The setting is a living and breathing world.
3. Because of point number two, and the fact that we can only see one "room" through the "window" at a time, it leads us to draw (incorrect) conclusions about the rest of the "house." If we see Mystra constantly being tossed at us in source and in novels we start to believe that she is somehow more meddlesome or more important to the world than another. The converse is true for Shar in 4th Edition. This false perception leads to many of the problems we have today.
Finally, going back to your original point made somewhere at the beginning of this thread and my response to it... I claim that the Shar "situation" is just the opposite side of the coin to the Mystra "situation." In other words, they're no different and the complaints leveled at Shar are the same or similar complaints as those leveled against Mystra in the past.
You disagreed with that, and I encouraged you to make a list of things that make the two situations incompatible to one another.
That is the point of this thread. For any complaint leveled against Shar, I can literally go back in time, look for a post for the exact or similar complaint leveled against Mystra, and then swap around a few nouns and adjectives... and repost it here.
If anyone out there disagrees, then I encourage them to prove me wrong.
1. Yes, Shar became more prominent in the source in recent years. This cannot be disputed, yet she was always a prominent and important goddess. Nothing has changed in that regard, with the exception of her actually getting more face time.
-Which is my problem with Shar.
2. We only get to see a small portion of what is going on in the Realms at any one time. It is like looking through a window - you can only see one room. Lathander, Kossuth, Kelemvor, Hoar, Ilmater, all of those deities and their followers are also active in the Realms. The setting is a living and breathing world.
3. Because of point number two, and the fact that we can only see one "room" through the "window" at a time, it leads us to draw (incorrect) conclusions about the rest of the "house." If we see Mystra constantly being tossed at us in source and in novels we start to believe that she is somehow more meddlesome or more important to the world than another. The converse is true for Shar in 4th Edition. This false perception leads to many of the problems we have today.
-This cannot be used as evidence to support or deny anything. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, and evidence of lack is not lack of evidence. The same principle can be used to argue the opposite of what you are getting across- even though we have seen [This Much] about a specific character, place, thing, whatever, there is even more, [This Much More] that we haven't seen about a specific character, place, thing, whatever, that adds to what is already present.
You have two choices. Either:
A) People's perceptions are correct, and therefore Mystra/Shar/The Chosen are/were problems of the setting that need(ed) to be removed.
B) People's perceptions of the setting are incorrect, and you can go ahead and fill in your explanation for that however you want. Thus, making it a problem with the way the setting is presented AND a problem with individuals who do not properly understand it / see the big picture.
It is either one or the other. If there is a C or D in there somewhere, that I don't get then feel free to enlighten me.
-As I said, I dislike Shar for specific reasons. I dislike Mystra for specific reasons. There is not a uniform "Choice A or Choice B", as you assert. My own likes and dislikes have nothing to do with perception, misperception, fact, exaggerations, etc.
-All of that, I am discussing my personal dislikes, which have nothing to do with campaigns. I don't do DMing in the Forgotten Realms. All of my opinions have nothing to do with D&D campaigns. Those who think that Shar and her minions are ruining their D&D campaigns are just as wrong as Mystra and her minions ruining their D&D campaigns.
...However, as the likes of Therise mentioned to me, ...
The "likes of" Therise?
Okay, that's the single oddest way someone has ever quoted me. Heh!
Too easy an answer, say something unreasonable and inflammatory... c'mon, you know you want to, you squinty-eyed dwarfling. ;)
Huzzah, tis the New Year and I am trying to be a better poster! I am sure I will get a little testy here and there but I am trying to take a different route and see if I can the results I am looking for. :D
Those who think that Shar and her minions are ruining their D&D campaigns are just as wrong as Mystra and her minions ruining their D&D campaigns.
Yes, that is what this thread is about. ;)
It is perfectly valid to have a dislike of Shar or Mystra as concept / character / spotlight hog / whatever. That's completely different from what I'm talking about. :P
I, personally, don't like how they are handling Shar in 4E because I believe it goes against what the character is about. I like Shar as a character, because I think her motivations and goals make her interesting. In turn, I think this makes her followers potentially interesting. Sadly, I fail to see anything that makes her unique or colorful being portrayed, but I am glad that there is at least one decent FR evil deity who has had some success. Poor Bane and Cyric totally got the short end of the stick. Cyric was completely ruined (for me at least).
Anyway, that's neither here nor there. We're talking about two different things. One thing deals with personal feelings, and the other deals with the actual play of the game.
Finally, going back to your original point made somewhere at the beginning of this thread and my response to it... I claim that the Shar "situation" is just the opposite side of the coin to the Mystra "situation." In other words, they're no different and the complaints leveled at Shar are the same or similar complaints as those leveled against Mystra in the past.
You disagreed with that, and I encouraged you to make a list of things that make the two situations incompatible to one another.
You've forgot the hugely obvious difference: alignment.
Mystra and her chosen are good aligned.
Shar, the Netherese and similar are distinctly evil.
This makes them entirely different and I'd argue incomparable problems off the bat. Again, PCs are never going to run off to Shar or Netheril searching for help (I mean, honestly), it's impossible for Shar or Netheril to "overshadow" the PCs as heroes (as often argued about the chosen) and while ever present in the setting, Shar/Netheril will have a hard time bothering my antagonists much.
Unlike the chosen/mystra, Shar can only actually do anything to affect my game under my decision as the DM. My players are never going to actually do anything with Shar unless they had a specific reason to (and that would be something that comes up at epic levels at minimum, so I would have plenty of opportunity to do something about it: if I wanted).
Your argument doesn't take the players desire to find X character into account. There is almost zero to go and find an evil empire/deity that is likely to kill you. There is quite a lot to find good aligned, famous characters that many players would feel have a reasonable motive to assist. That key difference makes your argument in this regard completely invalid.
Edit: I hate Shar btw because she's boring. She's not interesting, compelling or even likable as an antagonist. I prefer my antagonists to be interesting. Shar is the definition of boring.
I didn't overlook alignment because it was the first thing that came to my mind when I asked for a list. :P
To get to the core of the argument: People are saying Shar / Mystra / Chosen / Netheril are a problem in their games. The vast majority of all games played are going to have the PC's as fighting the good fight. The word "hero" might be too subjective, but generally speaking they're going to be on the opposing side of the Church of Shar and Netheril.
How is this any different than the Zhents, the Red Wizards, the Shadow Thieves, the Twisted Rune - go ahead and fill in any of the numerous and powerful evil organizations of the Realms from past editions.
The answer is: They are not.
There is certainly a difference in alignment, but does this cause a problem for the setting or a person's game? No. If so, then they'd have to explain why the Red Wizard's did not cause such a problem for them in the past.
The Netherese are no more or less powerful than say, the Abolethic Sovereignty. In terms of fear of threats or potential to cause a massive RSE... I'd be more afraid of them than Netheril.
Anyway, that's neither here nor there. We're talking about two different things. One thing deals with personal feelings, and the other deals with the actual play of the game.
-Which is why we've been having a disconnect, there. Makes more sense, now.
The answer is: They are not.
I agree. All those groups share the same alignment.
You're trying to compare Mystra and the Chosen with Shar and Netheril. This is not the same thing at all. Shar is just more obviously powerful than other antagonists and so makes an obvious "what is she going to do" argument. Ignoring Shar and Netheril is immensely easy. Ignoring the Chosen when your player insists otherwise in the middle of Myth Drannor is completely different.
Again, for them to be the same problem it would have to be the same from BOTH sides of the table. As players are unlikely to ever instigate looking for or engaging Shar/Netherese unless the DM had made this relevant somehow, it cannot possibly be the same.
Edit: Also, I entirely agree with you that from what I've read, the Abolethic Sovereignty are far more likely to have the potential for major destruction where they sit in the Sea of Fallen stars. Given they apparently have armies of flying krakens and can appear anywhere they feel like it seems (as the monolith and such show) they have real potential. But again, there isn't the detail on the Abolethic Sovereignty available as there is on Shar and the Netherese, so for many people Shar/Netheril make for the prime antagonist in 4E. Personally, I disagree but this is because I am the DM and can quite happily write what I want in and that I think Shar is boring.
-Unless the players are evil, or have similar goals as Shar, the Shadovar, or whomever else.
I haven't run an evil campaign in years and the problem with evil characters (or evil alignment in general) is you can't quite trust them as far as you can throw them. Just because you have similar goals may not mean you are helpful and going to the likes of Shar at low levels is going to be suicide (unless you can establish you are already useful). If I wrote an evil campaign based on this, it probably would already take into account for the PCs aiding Shar/Netheril anyway. Then again, if the party had widely different ideas and are evil, whomever goes "I need to go to Netheril" is going to end up hung drawn and quartered by the others whose goals conflict. This is why evil campaigns are so much fun (and also sometimes absurdly short ;) )
In general, I think it's more than a reasonable assumption people play with a generally good aligned or "heroic" party as opposed to evil characters. Of course then again as history has shown that doesn't stop players being homicidal maniacs (3rd edition Paladins spring to mind as the classic archetype for "Lawful Homicidal Good").
-Never played an evil game, so I don't know. It used to appeal to me, having a DM who would not allow players to be anything other than 'Good' or 'Neutral', but having read all sorts of problems that arise in parties with 'Evil' characters, along with my own inclinations on things, it's not really something that has my interest anymore.
This is off topic, but mostly evil campaigns are hilarious in my experience. Basically everyone roleplays either:
1) Chaotic stupid
2) A complete ass
Campaigns rapidly end with multiple backstabbings and if the PCs have different goals, it rapidly ends with some form of massacre. Even when the PCs are ostensibly working for the same God or group, they still invariably end up killing one another at some point. I've had a couple of really good players who have roleplayed neutral evil very well, but an entire party of evil characters nearly always falls apart (hilariously usually).
This is why I don't really bother with evil alignments. If played well, it usually leads to one player attempting to advance their position and invariably running into conflict with everyone else. It's also why if someone was wanting to be a servant of Shar and everyone else thought differently, it's rather likely they would bind, tie and throw said person off a pier the instant they discovered that. So someone going "let's find Shar/Netheril for help" is more than likely to be the first character on the chopping block.
I also wouldn't run a campaign like that anyway. I couldn't think of anything more boring than running a game where the idea is to advance the most boring antagonist in the realms plans.
For example, you can see an example of the problems with evil alignments in the "What is a DM to do" section of this board relating to the Scepter Tower of Spellguard adventure.
They already solved this problem on day one of the release of 3rd Edition.
DM's then -as now- were empowered to adjust the level and relative power of NPCs to suit the needs of a DM and his or her campaign.
Things were never set in stone.
Ever.
Here is the flaw in your theory.
If that is the case, then the DM also MUST (Not CAN, MUST) adjust the stats of every other NPC in the game relative to what they can achieve. Then the DM must do the labor to figure out if the NPC's can still achieve their goals. Finally, the DM must effectively run a series of combats and conflicts at their new level of power to determine whether or not things are achievable at this level.
While this will make your players happy, there will never be another session of your game, as the DM will likely spend most of his time analyzing whether or not this, that, or the other thing is possible.
Again, Story Driven vs. Character Driven. As usual, you miss the point of my argument, and deliberately misread it for your own intent.
You're looking at a CAMPAIGN.
I'm looking at a world.
If that is the case, then the DM also MUST (Not CAN, MUST) adjust the stats of every other NPC in the game relative to what they can achieve.
This not only isn't a must, it isn't even a maybe.
DMs don't ever find it necessary to equalize all NPCs evrywrz just because they adjust one NPC to fit their adventure.
You can't use "DM" and the phrase "looking at a world" in the same statement and expect it to mean anything other than talk about a campaign.
Because that's what all the "looking at the world" info is for: The DM.
Simple.
And before you go off half-cocked again, please understand I did get the gist of your earlier criticism. I get it, really.
All I'm saying is that there won’t ever be a logical translation between game mechanics and what some NPC pulls off in a novel. Game mechanics are approximations and tools for adjudicating. There never, ever, was a 1 to 1 on story to rules, since the dawn of D&D.
D&D is about heroic adventure, remember? It's about the uber-powerful badguys being challenged and maybe even defeated by the player characters.
Therefore DMs can adjust up and down the stats of NPCs to suit the needs of their game and in response to the actions by the player characters that drive the story along.
If that is the case, then the DM also MUST (Not CAN, MUST) adjust the stats of every other NPC in the game relative to what they can achieve. Then the DM must do the labor to figure out if the NPC's can still achieve their goals. Finally, the DM must effectively run a series of combats and conflicts at their new level of power to determine whether or not things are achievable at this level.
Wow, you must be an extremely good DM if you plan things to that small a level. I like that though. In the future I might take things like that into consideration.
But I suppose my problem is that I don't view evil as something inherently self-destructive or stupid... CE I could see that way, but NE and LE I could very much see as having plenty of incentive and reason to not betray or double-cross each other, and lots of reason to work together. For me, the only difference between good and evil in that respect is cost, and that's really just the nature of the cost rather than the value. I see no reason why evil types couldn't, or wouldn't go running to the Shade Princes, or Manshoon, or Tam when things started going badly... its just how they go about it that differs.
Obviously they aren't going to expect aid out of the goodness of the NPCs heart, so they have to go about finding a way to appeal or bribe for that aid... not easy, but possible if the potential rewards outweigh the cost in resources. Whereas the goodly types will just do things out of the goodness of their hearts... oh, wait, they wouldn't, for the most part. Put the cost out of reach, either in terms of gold or favors owed, of the PCs and you solve the issue pretty quickly, it works in either alignment direction. Its not like these NPCs know the PCs from a hole in the ground, or have any particular like or trust of the group, so making their aid conditional and perhaps prohibitively costly would make sense, if only to see how they react.
But I suppose my problem is that I don't view evil as something inherently self-destructive or stupid...
-Plenty would, and do, I guess. Take Shar, for instance. If you want to play real good Sharrans, you need to be nihilistic and such. That's probably not the best thing for an ongoing D&D campaign- especially towards the end. That's something I'd see as a problem with Shar and her followers, if someone was playing one of her followers. Maybe not a problem, per se, but...
This not only isn't a must, it isn't even a maybe.
DMs don't ever find it necessary to equalize all NPCs evrywrz just because they adjust one NPC to fit their adventure.
You can't use "DM" and the phrase "looking at a world" in the same statement and expect it to mean anything other than talk about a campaign.
Because that's what all the "looking at the world" info is for: The DM.
Simple.
And before you go off half-cocked again, please understand I did get the gist of your earlier criticism. I get it, really.
All I'm saying is that there won’t ever be a logical translation between game mechanics and what some NPC pulls off in a novel. Game mechanics are approximations and tools for adjudicating. There never, ever, was a 1 to 1 on story to rules, since the dawn of D&D.
D&D is about heroic adventure, remember? It's about the uber-powerful badguys being challenged and maybe even defeated by the player characters.
Therefore DMs can adjust up and down the stats of NPCs to suit the needs of their game and in response to the actions by the player characters that drive the story along.
Yep. All of it. The NPCs can be left alone or adjusted however you wish to run your game. I did this with my FR game back in 3E. In 4E this process just seems easier. If I do not want my PC running all over my kingdoms just yet I level up the rulers and soldiers, or at least some of them to make my players think twice. If I want them to go toe to toe and have it be a fun fight (for me and the players) then I adjust the levels to accomodate my game and story.
Nothing in a P&P game must be done or has to be done. The only must is the FUN of the players and DM. That is a biggie IMO.;)
I gave up on making some harmonious world through a P&P RPG with my first campaign. It does not work for me or my players. Having fun and not treating the game like real life and another form of work is the most important thing to me.
People that felt that Mystra and he JSR (Justice Society of the Realms) overshadowed PCs. They could have been right in some cases. I would have just told them to ignore it or remove the NPCs themselves.
I would have just told them there is no JSR and explained why. But you probably already knew that.
Wow, you must be an extremely good DM if you plan things to that small a level. I like that though. In the future I might take things like that into consideration.
Msatran is a great DM.
I would have just told them there is no JSR and explained why. But you probably already knew that.
Being the guy who started this I must again say it was ment as a joke...just to point out the illusion of a problme that was old realms...now not everyone hit that illusionary wall, and some that did went right on going...but lets not pretend it wasn't there
Midnight and her JSR (Justice Society of the Realms) overshadowed PCs
weather you felt it true or not was a reaccuring belife...
I never asked WotC to change the realms...I did vote with my wallet though...shortly after the core book I stoped buying...and I found myself not only not running but avoiding games as a player in that setting...
I figured att he time it was a small set of us that had this problme...
In 4e WotC changed it and fixed the problme...I now belive it may have been more wide spread, afterall WotC must have felt some hit to the wallet for it to be worth 'fixing'
I liked the old realms but couldn't play in it...I love the new realms and play in it...I think LFR would be VERY diffrent set 100 years ago
Aegeri-
I didn't overlook alignment because it was the first thing that came to my mind when I asked for a list. :P
To get to the core of the argument: People are saying Shar / Mystra / Chosen / Netheril are a problem in their games. The vast majority of all games played are going to have the PC's as fighting the good fight. The word "hero" might be too subjective, but generally speaking they're going to be on the opposing side of the Church of Shar and Netheril.
How is this any different than the Zhents, the Red Wizards, the Shadow Thieves, the Twisted Rune - go ahead and fill in any of the numerous and powerful evil organizations of the Realms from past editions.
The answer is: They are not.
There is certainly a difference in alignment, but does this cause a problem for the setting or a person's game? No. If so, then they'd have to explain why the Red Wizard's did not cause such a problem for them in the past.
The Netherese are no more or less powerful than say, the Abolethic Sovereignty. In terms of fear of threats or potential to cause a massive RSE... I'd be more afraid of them than Netheril.
I thought alignments went the way of the Dodo?
Being the guy who started this I must again say it was ment as a joke...
I doubt that, considering what you put in your signature. It seems you sincerely believe in this "joke".
And, even if you did mean it as a joke, I'm still going to address the subject, because "the Justice League of Mystra" is an errorneous meme that DIDN'T start with you, and it probably won't end with you either.
weather you felt it true or not was a reaccuring belife...
It's a false belief, and I'm more than happy to state that it is and explain why. Everybody else will just have to deal with that. Just because a belief is popular doesn't mean it's true, and I don't need to treat it with any reverence whatsoever.
I thought alignments went the way of the Dodo?
No, alignments are still there, it's just that it is now emphasized that they are for roleplaying purposes and are no longer very important mechanically.
I doubt that, considering what you put in your signature. It seems you sincerely believe in this "joke".
iT IS A JOKE...I belive there is a problme ...but the name was a joke...
And, even if you did mean it as a joke, I'm still going to address the subject, because "the Justice League of Mystra" is an errorneous meme that DIDN'T start with you, and it probably won't end with you either.
good, and so it shouldn't... it was a problme for SOME...therefore it should be remembered...even if it is in a joke formaT...
It's a false belief, and I'm more than happy to state that it is and explain why. Everybody else will just have to deal with that. Just because a belief is popular doesn't mean it's true, and I don't need to treat it with any reverence whatsoever.
It was a belif that false or not still hurt the setting...fixing it made the setting better...even if you dislike the fix
-Plenty would, and do, I guess. Take Shar, for instance. If you want to play real good Sharrans, you need to be nihilistic and such. That's probably not the best thing for an ongoing D&D campaign- especially towards the end. That's something I'd see as a problem with Shar and her followers, if someone was playing one of her followers. Maybe not a problem, per se, but...
For some reason I didn't even think of our one and only evil campaign until I read this reference to how such a campaign might close.
Our only evil campaign was played with the d20 SWRpg (RCR from Wizards) and set in the Jedi Civil War Era. We understood, it being Star Wars, that the good guys always win in the end. In the end, we stood atop a pile of dead Jedi, and were bombarded from orbit by Republic forces. It was fun.
As Stigger's post alluded, you really need a mature group to play any semblance of a fun evil campaign (at least by my definition of fun). Immature players tend to become self-destructive, as you alluded.
iT IS A JOKE...I belive there is a problme ...but the name was a joke...
good, and so it shouldn't... it was a problme for SOME...therefore it should be remembered...even if it is in a joke formaT...
It was a belif that false or not still hurt the setting...fixing it made the setting better...even if you dislike the fix
Your 'belifs' are different from others. As far as I remember, the argument has been here that certain NPCs made the gaming world hell for players. Which I never understood since you, the DM, were never in any contract that they had to be a part of your games. If you liked them, use them. If you didn't, don't use them. Or you could even kill them off in your own game and dance on their corpses.
But because you dislike something, it has to be removed from canon? That's the only way to appease you? This reminds me of the Parent Council that wanted Buffy: The Vampire Slayer and other shows cancelled because they promoted ideas they were against. Instead of monitoring their children and explaining why they didn't want them to watch the show, they feel it's the networks responsibility to remove the show so they won't have to 'deal with it'.
I know I sound inflammatory. I'm just getting sick of people that have complained for years that they didn't like something in a setting I love, to which we responded 'then don't use it', and now that the roles are reversed, I feel that many are trying to tell us we (those that are choosing not to use the new Realms) HAVE to use it because it's so 'kewl'.
Ahhh... doesn't matter anyway. This will probably be deleted by a monitor as a violation of the CoC for baiting.
Your 'belifs' are different from others.
both sets of belifs have there people on that side...I am not saying mine is the majority...but stop pretending I am alone on mine..
As far as I remember, the argument has been here that certain NPCs made the gaming world hell for players. Which I never understood since you, the DM, were never in any contract that they had to be a part of your games. If you liked them, use them. If you didn't, don't use them. Or you could even kill them off in your own game and dance on their corpses.
I found an easier one...I stoped useing the realms...
But because you dislike something, it has to be removed from canon?
no...I just stoped buying it...
That's the only way to appease you? This reminds me of the Parent Council that wanted Buffy: The Vampire Slayer and other shows cancelled because they promoted ideas they were against.
NO...more like I stoped watching buffy, then it got cancled...a new show got put on and I watched that...sorry your's is gone...but I like what we have...if enough liked yours it wouldn't have been cancled..
Instead of monitoring their children and explaining why they didn't want them to watch the show, they feel it's the networks responsibility to remove the show so they won't have to 'deal with it'.
again I NEVER asked for it to be changed...I just stoped buying...
I know I sound inflammatory. I'm just getting sick of people that have complained for years that they didn't like something in a setting I love, to which we responded 'then don't use it', and now that the roles are reversed, I feel that many are trying to tell us we (those that are choosing not to use the new Realms) HAVE to use it because it's so 'kewl'.
by all means...if you don't like it don't buy it...don't use it...But don't you dare come here and tell me that it is my fault...I had nothing to do with it...but I am injoying it...
Ahhh... doesn't matter anyway. This will probably be deleted by a monitor as a violation of the CoC for baiting.
maybe...but maybe we can use this to get back to the meat of this...
You have your realms...you love it...I can't run or play in it...
Now I have a realms I love and I can run...
if in 5e they retcon the whole thing...have elminster go back in time and stop mystra from dying...completly cutting my entire realms out of countiniuty... I don't care I would still run my realms...
And, just for the record, Star Trek was cancelled after three seasons due to the network not believing in the story, even though some fans still wanted more. So, if the Realms I love is in the same category, I think we'll be fine in the years to come.
*sigh* I'm not singling you out, I'm point out the like-minded group of individuals that share the same belief as you do. And, I am going forth with my own story for the Realms, as are many others, and not buying the new books.
good for you..
And, just for the record, Star Trek was cancelled after three seasons due to the network not believing in the story, even though some fans still wanted more. So, if the Realms I love is in the same category, I think we'll be fine in the years to come.
and for every star trek there are 400 other shows cancled for good reasons...I don't care witch this is...I like the new setting...and will enjoy it as long as I can...
Your 'belifs' are different from others. As far as I remember, the argument has been here that certain NPCs made the gaming world hell for players.
Depending on the DM. This is not a general argument used by everyone. Some people dislike those characters and have run into conflict with people wanting to find said characters. Sure, I solved this in exactly the same way you proposed below by killing them off (or dumping them in unpleasant places like leaving Elminster in Hell for example) after the final "straw", but then eventually I decided it was less hassle to not run the realms, not buy anything in the realms and move on.
I don't even think I made more than 2 posts on the subject in this forum in the entire time the FRCS was out (though I did read the novel forums, which were amazingly explosive once the RSE style novels started to appear).
Which I never understood since you, the DM, were never in any contract that they had to be a part of your games. If you liked them, use them. If you didn't, don't use them. Or you could even kill them off in your own game and dance on their corpses.
Yes you could, but as I realised doing that is just being deliberately antagonising to players who actually liked those characters. Why do something like that and just create further conflict (potentially, in my case it worked actually, but I can see that leading to further issues) with the person in question?
Edit: Just to note, I again emphasise that is exactly what I did. I also view it now as the most heavy handed and poor solution I could have taken (even if it is the most directly simple). Now that it is written into the book though as actual canon, with the spellplague and similar providing a good simple reason why these characters aren't going to be as powerful as they were to directly help PCs (but their knowledge of the realms, lore and such would be invaluable) I don't feel the need to do so anymore. In many ways, without defined stat blocks for how they look in "4E" anymore and the spellplague known to have reduced their power, I am actually not so worried about their use anymore either derailing a campaign or overshadowing the PCs for whatever reason. The spellplague did what I wanted and in a smarter way than simply butchering them all, it made them look vulnerable: especially without Mystra being around anymore.
But because you dislike something, it has to be removed from canon?
Just because you like something, it has to be kept in canon?
I know I sound inflammatory. I'm just getting sick of people that have complained for years
That's something I've never done. I might have made, back in the day, a single post or so on the issue. After I "moved on" from the Forgotten Realms I stopped posting on the main boards (because what would I be accomplishing except being directly and deliberately antagonistic to people who liked the Realms fine with those characters as they were at the time?) and similar.
I am well aware that you are correct and many many such posts were made over the course of this forum, but this is not what everyone did. I for example have other things to do than complain about something I claim I'm no longer going to run or buy anymore.
Edit: I don't think you sound inflammatory at all either.
that they didn't like something in a setting I love, to which we responded 'then don't use it', and now that the roles are reversed, I feel that many are trying to tell us we (those that are choosing not to use the new Realms) HAVE to use it because it's so 'kewl'.
No. I've done the exact opposite in nearly every thread, simply telling people to use their old 3.5 books, which aren't going anywhere quite frankly. I've taken the opportunity to pick up some 3.5 books, like Serpent Kingdoms that I missed out on as they are being sold for cheap. I've still got my old books like Faiths and Pantheons (I am aware there is a better 2nd edition book, but I never found/bought that one) and such forth.
Edit:
To make my point clear. If they change it back in 5E to something filled with high level NPCs, metaplot wazoo, Shar now has a legion of Mary-Sues and such forth, I'll just not buy it and keep playing the 4E version or move onto something else. While 4E is around I'll happily play in it because I like it and continue to write campaigns for it. I will only stop if I can't find people to play in the 4E realms, my players personally ask me to change setting (something I've done before if I like them) or I have too much other stuff to do in "real life" to play DnD. I might make a single post on my thoughts about a 5E realms if I dislike it and then I'd just move on.
18DELTA (PERSECUTED FOR LORD CYRIC'S SAKE) :P
18DELTA (CHOSEN OF CYRIC) :P
I've been voting with my wallet since the books came out. And I actually don't post much here (even before the release of the books). But every once in a while I do feel that I need to voice my opinion on the situation, if for no other reason than to make sure it shows an opposing viewpoint.
And 18DELTA:
[good natured ribbing]Of course you need to be stopped! Damn Cyricists have ruined everything with their 'Black Sun' this and 'schmucking perfectly innocent goddesses upside their brainpans'. ;)[/end gnr]
they have been heaped with the blame for things since the ones who were really irritating about it aren't really around much to vent upon.
One would have to wonder where they went actually. You'd think they would have come back to crow about their victory or something.
Anyhow, we keep getting 'comic comparisons' here. Do any of the people who read comics make that comparison? Lets get away from DC for now - I have been reading them since a kid, and most of the individual titles appear to take place in a vacuum.
But Marvel on the other hand... simply superb. When Spiderman DOES discover an alien conspiracy, he DOES go to the Avengers... only to find-out that they are in Timbuktoo fighting 'the Uber-Rhino Army' or whatever. He then goes to the Fantastic Four, and finds the FF are off in another galaxy fighting the Skrulls again. So whats he do? He gathers together the replacement FF (there really is such a thing), and does what he has to.
WHY, for heaven's sake, is Elminster even home when the PCs go looking for him? Why is he even answering his door? Why are they making it all the way to Shadowdale, before the NPCs become aware of what they are doing, and drag them back to the problem (say, Thay for instance)?
Once again, really poor DMing skills at work.
You are letting the PCs run rampant all over you with meta-gaming knowlege.
What if the PCs find out a Harper Agent is working with a Thayan Elnclave (for whatever reason)? Would they still trust going to the Harpers?
What if they went to the Simbul, and she told them they were on their own? Did you know that Mystra has Decreed that she CANNOT kill any more Red Wizards? If she DID go balls-to-the-wall nuts and rampaged through Thay, it would be Elminster's Job to stop her... at any cost.
Not only are the 'Uber-NPCs' usually busy with 'cosmic matters' (read El in Hell, or any of a dozen other stories to see what Elminster's real concerns are), but they tend not to bother with 'small things' (and anything is consdidered small, given what they are used to dealing with). Does Superman even bother to catch bank-robbers anymore? Do the "Avengers Assemble" when they hear about a mugging?
Harpers pose as bad guys all the time, and it stands to reason that people like the Zhentarrim have agents of their own planted within the Harpers. This is why in movies and novels and what-not you don't find the 'little-guys' running to the authoritoes - they don't know who to trust.
You are allowing the Players to dictate to you how the world works, but not everything is black and white.
Suppose they find out that there is a major Zhentarrim plot to take over the Moonsea region (there ALWAYS is), and they run to Elminster. Did you know one of the main groups the Zhents are trying to 'oust' from the Moonsea region are the Thayans? What if their primary targets are all Thayan?
Why would Elminster help the PCs, when he knows that it's going to do more damage to another evil group, and he'd rather just sit back and watch them kill each other?
This is NOT knowledge your PC (or players for that matter) would have. You are allowing them to write the story, instead of telling them how it is.
The next time they decide to "run to Elminster", have them see Elminster giving a powerful item to the 'bad guys'. That will stop them in their tracks.
It may not be Elminster at all, or it may be him planting something dangerous within their midst, or it could even be that he is actually helping them for his own obscure reasons...
The players don't have to know everything that is going on, and you are assuming they do. It is the job of the DM to railroad the players, NOT the other way around! If you can't come up with simple solutions to all the curve-balls the players throw at you (and I've seen some doozies), then maybe you should play under a epic-level DM for awhile.
I was fortunate enough to play with a god-like DM when I was a teen, and if I am 1/10 the DM he was then I am happy.* The best training comes from playing with someone who knows how to handle 'messy' situations, not from reading the rulebook cover-to-cover.
Just like in the game, experience is everything. I think a lot of 'new DMs' are doing so "right out of the box", and thats a BIG mistake, IMHO. I've seen it (with my bro-in-law's group), and its scarey. The players run rampant all over the game-world, and the poor DM is unable to handle it (and in some cases, doesn't care to).
I don't mean to be insulting - it's just the way it is. I wouldn't expect anyone to be a masterful surgeon after reading a book on surgery - you need to get a few years of practice under your belt before you know how to handle every situation that arises. While it is true some people are just 'born DMs', most folks aren't, and they have to learn the hard way.
*Just to clarify - he killed-off one of my first and favorite characters when I did something stupid. I was a barabrian (typical Viking-type) who had a shiney new magical axe just gleened from a Dragon's Horde, and I was carrying it about over my shoulder (showing it off - it was my PC's personality to do so). A Knight of the Realm insisted on confiscating the axe (I was scaring the townsfolk), and I refused to give it up. The knight drew his sword... and I killed him. I was arrested, slapped in irons, and summararily executed a few days later.
I learned a lot about 'respect' that day... Player characters can't just "do whatever they want", and I'm a better person for the hard-lesson taught me (did I mention it was my favorite -and only - character at the time?). You don't learn from things 'going your way', you learn from adversity. The next time your players go looking for Khelben, have him kill one of them... that'll work.
Anyhow, we keep getting 'comic comparisons' here. Do any of the people who read comics make that comparison? Lets get away from DC for now - I have been reading them since a kid, and most of the individual titles appear to take place in a vacuum.
yes I read them I even joked about the lack of JLA and Titan support in the RIP story labled "Batman's darkest day"
But Marvel on the other hand... simply superb. When Spiderman DOES discover an alien conspiracy, he DOES go to the Avengers... only to find-out that they are in Timbuktoo fighting 'the Uber-Rhino Army' or whatever. He then goes to the Fantastic Four, and finds the FF are off in another galaxy fighting the Skrulls again. So whats he do? He gathers together the replacement FF (there really is such a thing), and does what he has to.
witch is fine in a story not so fine when players whine...
Once again, really poor DMing skills at work.
I'll come back to this latter...
You are letting the PCs run rampant all over you with meta-gaming knowlege.
What if the PCs find out a Harper Agent is working with a Thayan Elnclave (for whatever reason)? Would they still trust going to the Harpers?
you see the roblme is when the PCs say "That can't happen and leas to a 2 hour out of game arguement about who and what the harpers are...
What if they went to the Simbul, and she told them they were on their own? Did you know that Mystra has Decreed that she CANNOT kill any more Red Wizards? If she DID go balls-to-the-wall nuts and rampaged through Thay, it would be Elminster's Job to stop her... at any cost.
and what source material is this in...let me guess those same novels I don't read...
Not only are the 'Uber-NPCs' usually busy with 'cosmic matters' (read El in Hell, or any of a dozen other stories to see what Elminster's real concerns are), but they tend not to bother with 'small things' (and anything is consdidered small, given what they are used to dealing with).
As I said before small is fine...as they level the PCs expect that they can rub shoulders with these Icons...witch if they are Novel fans and I am not...how do I know the personalities???
Does Superman even bother to catch bank-robbers anymore?
Yes
Do the "Avengers Assemble" when they hear about a mugging?
No but if they didn't show for secret Invasion there might be a problme...
Harpers pose as bad guys all the time, and it stands to reason that people like the Zhentarrim have agents of their own planted within the Harpers. This is why in movies and novels and what-not you don't find the 'little-guys' running to the authoritoes - they don't know who to trust.
except when PCs know better then the DM...
Suppose they find out that there is a major Zhentarrim plot to take over the Moonsea region (there ALWAYS is), and they run to Elminster. Did you know one of the main groups the Zhents are trying to 'oust' from the Moonsea region are the Thayans? What if their primary targets are all Thayan?
Why would Elminster help the PCs, when he knows that it's going to do more damage to another evil group, and he'd rather just sit back and watch them kill each other?
great story...would make a cool game...and all it took was knowing all the novel characters and how they act...wow...like inorder to come up with it you would have to know elminster...what if you NEVER READ THE NOVELS...
This is NOT knowledge your PC (or players for that matter) would have. You are allowing them to write the story, instead of telling them how it is.
as a coorapritive game I find it much better to not be antaganistic to my players
The next time they decide to "run to Elminster", have them see Elminster giving a powerful item to the 'bad guys'. That will stop them in their tracks
.
yes it will and the game too well there is a debate on what this means...
The players don't have to know everything that is going on, and you are assuming they do. It is the job of the DM to railroad the players, NOT the other way around! If you can't come up with simple solutions to all the curve-balls the players throw at you (and I've seen some doozies), then maybe you should play under a epic-level DM for awhile.
That is funny...any setting that isn't novel based I AM considered an Epic DM...infact I have been told by many, even at Gen Con at 1 shots my games run better then most...I have no problme with curve balls I have a problme with stealth balls...How can I correct elminster if I only know the game stats???
However I must break part of this statement apart...
It is the job of the DM to railroad the players,
I don't play that way, I let the PCs go with what they want...
I don't mean to be insulting - it's just the way it is. I wouldn't expect anyone to be a masterful surgeon after reading a book on surgery - you need to get a few years of practice under your belt before you know how to handle every situation that arises. While it is true some people are just 'born DMs', most folks aren't, and they have to learn the hard way.
well some of us like to play games not become surgeons...
Just to clarify - he killed-off one of my first and favorite characters when I did something stupid. I was a barabrian (typical Viking-type) who had a shiney new magical axe just gleened from a Dragon's Horde, and I was carrying it about over my shoulder (showing it off - it was my PC's personality to do so). A Knight of the Realm insisted on confiscating the axe (I was scaring the townsfolk), and I refused to give it up. The knight drew his sword... and I killed him. I was arrested, slapped in irons, and summararily executed a few days later.
Inless there was much more to this story (I will asume this was foot notes) then he sucked...I wiuld NEVER play with such a jerk again...and neaither would most of my players... The NPC over reacted, you jumped the gun...lots of consqianeces should have followed...summararily executed is a crappy ending to a character...
I learned a lot about 'respect' that day... Player characters can't just "do whatever they want", and I'm a better person for the hard-lesson taught me (did I mention it was my favorite -and only - character at the time?).
I'm glad you came back to gameing...that sounds like a very harsh first shot
The next time your players go looking for Khelben, have him kill one of them... that'll work.
yea if
by work you mean end the game as players quite and are ******...
Once again there is a VERY simple solution I found it...I played Homebrew and other settings...
Why isn't there this problme with spell jammer?
Why isn't there this problme with Dark Sun?
Why isn't there this problme with Ebberon?
Why do the same group of PCs and the same DM have years of gaming with no problmes EXCEPT with this one setting...
why is it you started your post
Got about halfway through page four before it all started sounding the same...as usual.
As usual...you mean this is 'shock' not NEW news to you that people have these problmes...
well I guess enough people had the problme...they voted by not buying or playing in the realms...and WotC changed it...
Maybe you should take a deep breath and remember that problmes faced by large numbers need fixing
you said:
Just like in the game, experience is everything. I think a lot of 'new DMs' are doing so "right out of the box", and thats a BIG mistake, IMHO. I've seen it (with my bro-in-law's group), and its scarey. The players run rampant all over the game-world, and the poor DM is unable to handle it (and in some cases, doesn't care to).
so what you want is system mastery and eliteism...what I want is for it to work out of the box...we have diffrent goals...we will NEVER see eye to eye...
enjoy your games, I will enjoy mine, but don't you dare tell me mine isn't worth it...
and again:I NEVER asked for it to be changed...I just stoped buying...
NOW that it did change I love it
Why isn't there this problme with spell jammer?
Why isn't there this problme with Dark Sun?
Why isn't there this problme with Ebberon?
Why do the same group of PCs and the same DM have years of gaming with no problmes EXCEPT with this one setting...
-Dragonlance. I want to be the most powerful magician, but Raistlin is, so I can't. Star Wars. I want to play the Emperor, but I can't. Star Trek. I want to be Q, but I can't...
-It happens everywhere. Hell, it happens on Earth, "I want to be XYZ, but ABC is stopping me". It happens in Dark Sun. It happens in Spelljammer. It happens in Eberron.
And if the players complain, tell them to stfu or hit the road... ;)
I'm a DM, not a babysitter. I don't cater to 'whiney know-it-alls' - I run a game for adults.
And by adult, I mean anyone that can act like one. I've seen a ten year old that can teach maturity at a senior home, and I've seen a 35 year old act like he was five... all while playing D&D for the past 30+ years.
The game YOU run is NOT the one that takes place in the novels - that is an alternate quantum universe, and doesn't follow the same rules (or history) that YOUR game world does. If you want a comic-book reference, pick any of DC's pre-Crisis Earths. Marvel I don't know so well, but there was that 'alternate Future' that some of the X-Men were from (Cable, and a few others, I believe). If your players think that they are form the same world as the novels - challenge them, and ask them to find a book-reference to any of their PCs in the canon material.
Guess what? They can't! Know why? Because they do not exist in the same world the novels take place in!
Anyhow, in YOUR game, Elminster might be a crotchity old man that eats babies just for fun - if your players tell you otherwise, then THEY are running the game, NOT you.
And I thought someone might jump on my use of 'Railroading' - its like the line from one of my favorite episodes of Futurama -
"When you do things right, they won't know you've done anything at all". ;)
It doesn't really matter which direction the party heads when they leave town... they still run into the same NPC that tells them about 'the thing in the mountains', or whatever I'm doing. It also doesn't matter if they decide to head in another direction and ignore 'the thing' (I've had that happen) - thats when 'the thing' comes to them (kidnaps a party memeber, or destroys the place they are heading to, whatever...)
This is why I find it nearly impossible to run pre-fab adventures without tons of tweaking - because NO group of adventurers are ever going to do everything that is expected of them.
If you are attempting to run FR for a group that knows FR better then you, then they are 'leading' you, and it should really be the other way around.
I really am sorry you've had trouble with 'those sorts' - I've seen lore monkeys/rules lawyers like them ruin games... and yet the same rules never seem to apply to them (they will always point-out when someone else is 'bending' the rules, but they do it more then anyone else, in my experience).
Anyhow, PCs die when players do stupid things. If you think you need to keep a player character alive after he does something stupid, its no wonder your players use you for a doormat.
BTW - I agree with you about the novels - I think they ruined the game... and will eventually again. IF all people read were sourcebooks, the world would be a better place.
The novels are usually border-line amateurish, and don't bother to hold to the rules. If your players insist on 'following the novels', then ask them how Szass Tam casts 17 fireballs in a row in one of them. The novels don't make sense, and they don't have to. They take place in 'some other FR'.
As for the Harpers being 'bad guys' - a few have 'gone bad' over the years, and some, like that Halfling Jakk from the Everis Cale novels, hangs out with murderers (which strikes me VERY odd... but I just roll with it). Another I can think of off the top of my head works as a slaver aboard a slave ship - just to keep tabs on the slaving operation (and perhaps disrupt things further down the road, or 'at the top').
Harpers and Chosen are all about "the greater good", and sometimes that means ignoring the 'lesser evils' around you. Hell, most of their informants are Thieves - pickpockets and what have you.
You can't do 'good' without getting a little dirty yourself, and if your novel-reading players are telling you the Chosen and Harpers are all goody-goody boyscouts, then they really do have you on a very short leesh. If you want, think of the Harpers like an American Police agency. I have an uncle that used to be a NYC Police Sgt. - corruptist guy I ever knew... and he bragged about it! That may not be how the 'novel Harpers' are, but hell, Spiderman doesn't swing around MY NYC either (I've checked :P)
FR is indeed hard to run - I will grant you that. It takes a lot of knowledge to run a good game, and that time-investment isn't for everybody. I don't want you to think I do not know where you are coming from - I would agree with you 100% that the Old Realms weren't working for you.
I just want to ask you one thing - you say you are an epic-DM when you run other settings.
Why, then, did you feel it necessary for them to destroy the one and only setting you had problems running?
Did it bother you that a setting existed that you had trouble running, while others didn't?
What was it about the other settings that you ran so well that drove you away and 'forced' you to run FR? Your players? If they are such experts, then why aren't they running it?
Is it because they know they can 'get over' on you?
I'm just not getting this attitude - not just from you, but from all the people who have similar complaints (and please, PLEASE, do NOT take this personally - this post really goes out to everyone that had problems running an FR game in the past). What I can't wrap my mind around is why is it that all these folks say they had no problem with a hundred other settings... and yet INSIST on running FR?
To the point where the people who did love it as-is now have nothing.
In your own words, you had inumerable settings that you ran well.
Did you really need the one and only one some of us 'ran well'? Is it now a feather in your cap, knowing that you can run it better then us now?
What did I ever do to you?
-Dragonlance. I want to be the most powerful magician, but Raistlin is, so I can't. Star Wars. I want to play the Emperor, but I can't. Star Trek. I want to be Q, but I can't...
-It happens everywhere. Hell, it happens on Earth, "I want to be XYZ, but ABC is stopping me". It happens in Dark Sun. It happens in Spelljammer. It happens in Eberron.
I never played dragonlance, or read them...so maybe but I don't know...
However Why are you then saying "Want to play"????
I'm a DM, not a babysitter. I don't cater to 'whiney know-it-alls' - I run a game for adults.
And by adult, I mean anyone that can act like one. I've seen a ten year old that can teach maturity at a senior home, and I've seen a 35 year old act like he was five... all while playing D&D for the past 30+ years.
I agree...and if these people were problmes all the time that is one thing...but again it is ONLY a realms problme in my experance...
The game YOU run is NOT the one that takes place in the novels - that is an alternate quantum universe, and doesn't follow the same rules (or history) that YOUR game world does. If you want a comic-book reference, pick any of DC's pre-Crisis Earths. Marvel I don't know so well, but there was that 'alternate Future' that some of the X-Men were from (Cable, and a few others, I believe). If your players think that they are form the same world as the novels - challenge them, and ask them to find a book-reference to any of their PCs in the canon material.
Guess what? They can't! Know why? Because they do not exist in the same world the novels take place in!
sounds goood in theory
Anyhow, in YOUR game, Elminster might be a crotchity old man that eats babies just for fun - if your players tell you otherwise, then THEY are running the game, NOT you.
See if I am going to change that much I will homebrew...why try to agravate die hard fans of a character???
And I thought someone might jump on my use of 'Railroading' - its like the line from one of my favorite episodes of Futurama -
"When you do things right, they won't know you've done anything at all". ;)
It doesn't really matter which direction the party heads when they leave town... they still run into the same NPC that tells them about 'the thing in the mountains', or whatever I'm doing. It also doesn't matter if they decide to head in another direction and ignore 'the thing' (I've had that happen) - thats when 'the thing' comes to them (kidnaps a party memeber, or destroys the place they are heading to, whatever...)
In that case I take back what I said and I am sorry I jumped to the conclusion I did...THAT is good DMing 101
If you are attempting to run FR for a group that knows FR better then you, then they are 'leading' you, and it should really be the other way around.
that is why I stoped running the realms
I really am sorry you've had trouble with 'those sorts' - I've seen lore monkeys/rules lawyers like them ruin games... and yet the same rules never seem to apply to them (they will always point-out when someone else is 'bending' the rules, but they do it more then anyone else, in my experience).
funny but they never rules lawyer they JUST back seat drive when there fav characters are nvolved...elminster, black staff, a bunch I don't remember the names of, and finder
Anyhow, PCs die when players do stupid things. If you think you need to keep a player character alive after he does something stupid, its no wonder your players use you for a doormat.
wow...becuse I have problmes with ONE SETTTING you have labled me a door mat...
BTW - I agree with you about the novels - I think they ruined the game... and will eventually again. IF all people read were sourcebooks, the world would be a better place.
thank you..
The novels are usually border-line amateurish, and don't bother to hold to the rules. If your players insist on 'following the novels', then ask them how Szass Tam casts 17 fireballs in a row in one of them. The novels don't make sense, and they don't have to. They take place in 'some other FR'.
Once things like ebberon sepperated them though I loved it...novels that don't advance the setting...GOLD..
As for the Harpers being 'bad guys' - a few have 'gone bad' over the years, and some, like that Halfling Jakk from the Everis Cale novels, hangs out with murderers (which strikes me VERY odd... but I just roll with it). Another I can think of off the top of my head works as a slaver aboard a slave ship - just to keep tabs on the slaving operation (and perhaps disrupt things further down the road, or 'at the top').
OK
Harpers and Chosen are all about "the greater good", and sometimes that means ignoring the 'lesser evils' around you. Hell, most of their informants are Thieves - pickpockets and what have you.
cool
FR is indeed hard to run - I will grant you that. It takes a lot of knowledge to run a good game, and that time-investment isn't for everybody. I don't want you to think I do not know where you are coming from - I would agree with you 100% that the Old Realms weren't working for you.
on the same page so far...
I just want to ask you one thing - you say you are an epic-DM when you run other settings.
Why, then, did you feel it necessary for them to destroy the one and only setting you had problems running?
I see no need to change it, had the 4e setting been 1 year later instead of 100, and no real changes it would only stop me from running or playing this setting...I would love others still.
Infact I orginaly bought the players guide for the classes (Me loves me some Swordmage), and skipped the setting book, then I herd of the changes and decided to give it another shot...and I LOVE the new realms...
Did it bother you that a setting existed that you had trouble running, while others didn't?
not in the least...
What was it about the other settings that you ran so well that drove you away and 'forced' you to run FR? Your players? If they are such experts, then why aren't they running it?
nothing...had they not changed the setting it would be years till I trieded it again..
Is it because they know they can 'get over' on you?
no as I said before I just ran other games...no skin off my back
I'm just not getting this attitude - not just from you, but from all the people who have similar complaints (and please, PLEASE, do NOT take this personally - this post really goes out to everyone that had problems running an FR game in the past). What I can't wrap my mind around is why is it that all these folks say they had no problem with a hundred other settings... and yet INSIST on running FR?
I agree 100% not every setting is for everyone...just ignore the ones you you don't like...
To the point where the people who did love it as-is now have nothing.
In your own words, you had inumerable settings that you ran well.
Did you really need the one and only one some of us 'ran well'? Is it now a feather in your cap, knowing that you can run it better then us now?
I am sorry your world got changed...it had almost nothing to do with me...(I will take credit for voteing with my wallet only) I don't need anything...I just like the new setting...
What did I ever do to you?
maybe not you, but in general people who fight for what they want are only a problme when they single out others...Don't say "This problme is fake" if it is a problme others really had...Don't accuse others of changing 'your ' setting just becuse they lke the new one...
Back to comics for a moment...I loved Cap America Comics for years... Now Cap was shot and replaced by Bucky...I don't like bucky so I stoped reading...I am not asking for him to be changed back, but I also am not buying something I don't like...if they go back to steve I will go back to reading, but that doesn't mean Bucky fans would have the right to take it out on me...
iT IS A JOKE...I belive there is a problme ...but the name was a joke...
Like I said, the idea didn't start with you, and the name didn't either.
It was a belif that false or not still hurt the setting...fixing it made the setting better...even if you dislike the fix
No. I do not accept your premise that there was ever a problem to be fixed or that the setting is now better. If you like the new setting, that's fine, but everyone does not have to see things the way you do.
Also, as a general suggestion, please stop accusing people of saying things they didn't say.
Why isn't there this problme with spell jammer?
Why isn't there this problme with Dark Sun?
Why isn't there this problme with Ebberon?
Why do the same group of PCs and the same DM have years of gaming with no problmes EXCEPT with this one setting...
This doesn't mean anything special. All it means is that you liked those other settings better. There are people who love the "old" Realms and hate one or more of the settings you mentioned.
Like I said, the idea didn't start with you, and the name didn't either.
ok I will take you at your word...
No. I do not accept your premise that there was ever a problem to be fixed or that the setting is now better. If you like the new setting, that's fine, but everyone does not have to see things the way you do.
but if I am not the first to say it...then it WAS a problme for more then just me...
This doesn't mean anything special. All it means is that you liked those other settings better. There are people who love the "old" Realms and hate one or more of the settings you mentioned.
yea, but you see it wouldn't be just like/dislie...becuse the SAME problme came up with others...
but if I am not the first to say it...then it WAS a problme for more then just me...
yea, but you see it wouldn't be just like/dislie...becuse the SAME problme came up with others...
Oh for pete's sake, I NEVER said that you were the only one who had the problem.
It's starting to seem to me like you're just upset that I don't see things the way you do on this issue. I really don't care that more people than just you had a problem with certain characters--my opinion is still what it is.I'll just repeat what I said to you in my last post:
Also, as a general suggestion, please stop accusing people of saying things they didn't say.
Back to comics for a moment...I loved Cap America Comics for years... Now Cap was shot and replaced by Bucky...I don't like bucky so I stoped reading...I am not asking for him to be changed back, but I also am not buying something I don't like...if they go back to steve I will go back to reading, but that doesn't mean Bucky fans would have the right to take it out on me...
Agreed.
I had to stop reading comics in the mid-90's (wife was giving me $&!+), and in retrospect, am I ever glad I did.
After I heard what happened to poor old Spidey.
I prefer to remember them 'as they were' and move on - Perhaps it's time to do that with FR as well. I went kickin' and screaming when FR 'replaced' my beloved Greyhawk all those years ago, so I guess I can deal with it again.
Like I said - and I really, REALLY mean this - that post wasn't aimed at you in particular, just my frustrtion at the changes. I really am glad you and others are enjoying FR - I know I did, and it gave me a lot of happy memories.
And BTW, you were far more respectful to me then I of you... sorry about some of the less... fortunate... choices of words. :embarrass
I guess I'm just having trouble saying 'goodbye'.
Oh for pete's sake, I NEVER said that you were the only one who had the problem.
ok so if it was the problme felt from many people...why get mad at me that WotC changed it....
And BTW, you were far more respectful to me then I of you... sorry about some of the less... fortunate... choices of words. :embarrass
hey not a problme...no offence taken...I really hope you guys get your realms back someday...until then I will enjoy mine...
I guess I'm just having trouble saying 'goodbye'.
You don't have to say goodbye, though. You can love the Realms at any point in its history and still be a fan, use any earlier edition that you prefer best, without needing 4E at all. So you can stay, period.
I know, though, it's hard to remain positive when the Realms you love has been changed completely around, but you never really know. It is possible that they could completely re-tool it again for 5E, depending on fanbase input and sales. They did this to it, after all... why not a re-imagining again?
Personally, I'd absolutely love it if they came back and destroyed everything that makes it 4E, pushing it back to a truly 1E+ state. Not a hint of the ToT, no bizarre RSEs at that point, all fresh and ready to use. And completely de-canonizing everything post 1E. That would truly be an interesting Realms, as it really would be fully open for DM modification and you would have all the 2E-4E lore to choose from like a smorgasboard.
I never played dragonlance, or read them...so maybe but I don't know...
However Why are you then saying "Want to play"????
-Huh?
-There are people who have problems with their position in the relative universe in any setting. It's just chic to bring it up concerning the Forgotten Realms on internet boards and such. Look at how The Simbul demonstrated that, for example, the Chosen of Mystra (or, in Meldred's case, Shar and her followers), don't actually represent any barrier preventing play on any tier of play- lower levels, moderate levels, higher levels, epic levels- and that the concept that they do is an artificial creation with very little actual evidence supporting it, when the actual facts- and not internet here say, stories from friends of friends, and other things along those lines- are looked at.
-As to people wanting to play in setting that have things they don't like- or do anything else that has elements that they dislike- as that is how I interpreted that, I have no clue. That's always puzzled me.
-There are people who have problems with their position in the relative universe in any setting. It's just chic to bring it up concerning the Forgotten Realms on internet boards and such. Look at how The Simbul demonstrated that, for example, the Chosen of Mystra (or, in Meldred's case, Shar and her followers), don't actually represent any barrier preventing play on any tier of play- lower levels, moderate levels, higher levels, epic levels- and that the concept that they do is an artificial creation with very little actual evidence supporting it, when the actual facts- and not internet here say, stories from friends of friends, and other things along those lines- are looked at.
My examples are not here say TO ME...I HAD PROBLMES WITH MID TO HIGH LEVEL PLAY IN 2E AND 3E realms!!!!!!!
IF it was becuse I am a poor DM then it would show in other settings too
IF it was jerk PCs it would show in other settings too
If it was just dislike then I would have to dislike the setting witch I do not...
that the concept that they do is an artificial creation with very little actual evidence supporting it,
I propose at least 2 peaices of eveidance
1) People with little to no connection across the US had the same problme
2) WotC felt a hit enough to warrent changeing it
It's just chic to bring it up concerning the Forgotten Realms on internet boards and such.
so gee I guess I am only disagreeing with you becuse I want to look cool...
-As to people wanting to play in setting that have things they don't like- or do anything else that has elements that they dislike- as that is how I interpreted that, I have no clue. That's always puzzled me.
Are you even reading my posts???
I never complained to WotC, I think I posted less then 3 times on the FR boards through out all of 3rd edtion.
I moved on, then out of the blue WotC said "Hey you guys who don't like the realms becuse of the Novel/NPC/Mary Sue characters...take a look at this we are makeing it easier on you"
If you don't like the new realms fine...if you love the old fine...I have no problme with it at all...I have no beef with people who like things I don't...I have a beef with people who try to say that problmes are only in my mind...
Stop argueing that the problme didn't exsit...just say You liked it...that is it...you did I didn't...enough people felt like me that WotC banked on us not you...I am sorry, but please don't try to knock me down now that I am enjoying the realms...
There are people who have problems with their position in the relative universe in any setting.
then why is it not more common for people to complain about the other settings?
why is there no huge post on the Ebberon board calling any Big NPCs Mary sues...or complaining that there is too much going on in ebberon?
Why isn't there a huge movement to revamp eberron?
BECUSE IT WAS A REALMS PROBLME...
My examples are not here say TO ME...I HAD PROBLMES WITH MID TO HIGH LEVEL PLAY IN 2E AND 3E realms!!!!!!!
-Understood. That you, me, Stan Lee, or whoever else had problems, or whatever doesn't mean that there's something inherently wrong with the underlying theme of information. If someone had a problem with Star Wars, because Emperor Palpatine was the Emperor, and not someone else, and this was problematic to them, I wouldn't say that him being Emperor is inherently a problem. He is inherently nothing. He is what he is.
1) People with little to no connection across the US had the same problme
2) WotC felt a hit enough to warrent changeing it
so gee I guess I am only disagreeing with you becuse I want to look cool...
-Again, like before, that individuals had individual problems with whatever doesn't mean that whatever is inherently problematic. Again, The Simbul and Meldred (Meldred, I think I'm giving you too much credit, here) demonstrated how, in relation to the ending setting, they aren't more or less inherently problematic than anything else.
-And, yes, it is chic to 'bash' the Forgotten Realms. Just like it's 'chic' to bash, say, the Yankees (I'm a Mets fan, mind you), or Republicans, or the French, whatever, whoever.
Are you even reading my posts???
I never complained to WotC, I think I posted less then 3 times on the FR boards through out all of 3rd edtion.
I moved on, then out of the blue WotC said "Hey you guys who don't like the realms becuse of the Novel/NPC/Mary Sue characters...take a look at this we are makeing it easier on you"
If you don't like the new realms fine...if you love the old fine...I have no problme with it at all...I have no beef with people who like things I don't...I have a beef with people who try to say that problmes are only in my mind...
-This isn't relevant to my statement. To paraphrase myself, "I don't understand why people who don't like specific elements in a setting would want to play in whatever setting." I don't like Greyhawk, for example. It's regular fantasy, but it doesn't grab me. As such, I don't have any interest in playing it. That's it. I don't wish that whatever it was that turned me off from it was altered, so that I can.
to play in setting that have things they don't like-Stop argueing that the problme didn't exsit...just say You liked it...that is it...you did I didn't...enough people felt like me that WotC banked on us not you...I am sorry, but please don't try to knock me down now that I am enjoying the realms...
-It didn't, as an actual problem, as opposed to a meme that is repeated enough to make others think it is true, with nothing really done to rebut it. Again, The Simbul and Meldred disprove this specific meme. In 1493, people thought the world was flat. Mot of Europe, in fact. That most of Europe believed the world was flat, that didn't make it flat, did it?
-Further, don't attempt to insinuate that I am "knocking you down". I see this very much like hypochondria. Even if a hypochondriac is fine, they believe themselves to be sick, or getting sick. In truth, they are not. A doctor, let's say, telling a hypochondriac that he/she isn't as sick as he/she is saying is not doing anything inherently anything. Likewise, demonstrating that it really isn't that big of a problem isn't inherently anything. I'm not arguing, insulting, or making fun of. I am explaining.
then why is it not more common for people to complain about the other settings?
why is there no huge post on the Ebberon board calling any Big NPCs Mary sues...or complaining that there is too much going on in ebberon?
-People complain about other settings. People constantly criticize Eberron for being anime-D&D, or whatever. People constantly criticize Dragonlance for being NPC-centric, in that the novel characters are the main characters of the setting. People constantly criticize Star Wars for "cannanizing" the Jedi and "villainizing" the Sith.
Why isn't there a huge movement to revamp eberron?
-Eberron is being altered for it's 4e debut, radically in it's cosmology department, I'm being told.
BECUSE IT WAS A REALMS PROBLME...
-Such a phenomenon is not specific to the Forgotten Realms.
GM4PG, the issue isn't whether or not you like the new Realms or that we like the old Realms. You said yourself, (to paraphrase) that WotC changed the Realms because of the people complaining about the problems inherent in the system.
But I don't see that. FR sourcebooks and novels were the 'flagship' books for WotC and where they made a bulk of their money. Ed, Elaine and RAS made bestseller lists time and again writing about the 'problematic' NPCs that bashers on the boards complained 'ruined' the setting.
WotC did not make the change based on the fan's input. They made the change based on what they thought would sell more books and attract new players. Just the same as when Coca-cola introduced New Coke in the 90's.
Our stance (Rin, MT, LK - I apologize if I'm reading it wrong and please correct me) is that we're amazed that so many people were having problems with the Realms setting and yet kept coming back to it instead of using the settings they did not have problems with. That's like buying a Mac and constantly complaining about how PC Games don't care about your computer system. Sure, you can download emulators and patches out the wazoo, but if you buy a computer because you want to play games, then you go with the computer that plays games best.
-Understood. That you, me, Stan Lee, or whoever else had problems, or whatever doesn't mean that there's something inherently wrong with the underlying theme of information. If someone had a problem with Star Wars, because Emperor Palpatine was the Emperor, and not someone else, and this was problematic to them, I wouldn't say that him being Emperor is inherently a problem. He is inherently nothing. He is what he is.
ok if I have that problme...but what if 100 people have it...1,000...1 million?? how many people have to have the problme before you see it? or is it becuse YOU don't have it, it isn't real?
-And, yes, it is chic to 'bash' the Forgotten Realms. Just like it's 'chic' to bash, say, the Yankees (I'm a Mets fan, mind you), or Republicans, or the French, whatever, whoever.
so sorry to be putting you down by stating my mind...
-This isn't relevant to my statement. To paraphrase myself, "I don't understand why people who don't like specific elements in a setting would want to play in whatever setting." I don't like Greyhawk, for example. It's regular fantasy, but it doesn't grab me. As such, I don't have any interest in playing it. That's it. I don't wish that whatever it was that turned me off from it was altered, so that I can.
are you reading my posts t all??? how does this apply to me? I ask becuse it comes after my quote saying I NEVER ASKED FoR IT TO BE CHANGED!!!
-It didn't, as an actual problem, as opposed to a meme that is repeated enough to make others think it is true, with nothing really done to rebut it. Again, The Simbul and Meldred disprove this specific meme.
Wow...cool By showing indepth knowladge of the setting you proved you don't need indepth knowlade of the setting...oh wait
-Further, don't attempt to insinuate that I am "knocking you down". I see this very much like hypochondria. Even if a hypochondriac is fine, they believe themselves to be sick, or getting sick. In truth, they are not. A doctor, let's say, telling a hypochondriac that he/she isn't as sick as he/she is saying is not doing anything inherently anything. Likewise, demonstrating that it really isn't that big of a problem isn't inherently anything. I'm not arguing, insulting, or making fun of. I am explaining.
-People complain about other settings. People constantly criticize Eberron for being anime-D&D, or whatever. People constantly criticize Dragonlance for being NPC-centric, in that the novel characters are the main characters of the setting. People constantly criticize Star Wars for "cannanizing" the Jedi and "villainizing" the Sith.
Yes...and that has to do with this how?? each setting has pros and Cons...the Cons of this one kept me from playing in it...WotC changed the COns now I like and play in it...
-Eberron is being altered for it's 4e debut, radically in it's cosmology department, I'm being told.
I don't see that as the same at all...it is a cosmetic change not a 100 year leap, wipe the slate clean start over...
Do you belive me to be lying...or miss leading you and others when I said, that I have had the same problme crop up time and time again with the old realms?
Do you belive others to be lying or miss leading when they have the same problme?
see here is the crux of the argument...If I pick up the 3.5 ebberon Main book, and the 3.5 PHB I can run a game in Ebberon with fans of the setting that have read every book, and there is no problme...
If I did the same with Forgotten realms I have HUNDREDS of things to take into account, most I wont know ahead of time... since no where in that FR 3e campaign guide does it tell me even 1/2 of what you guys have, infact I think I have probley learned atleat a dozen new bts of info from this thread...
Forgotten Realms requares everyone to be at the same level of knowladge...no other setting does...
Welcome to 4e realms...where The DM doesn't need to worry about any of the NPCs from the novels...
A doctor, let's say, telling a hypochondriac that he/she isn't as sick as he/she is saying is not doing anything inherently anything. Likewise, demonstrating that it really isn't that big of a problem isn't inherently anything. I'm not arguing, insulting, or making fun of. I am explaining.
A similar argument can be directed straight back at you. You're the guy who despite hacking and coughing all day denies that he's actually sick, until eventually it's almost too late to do anything and you have to hack off his gangrenous leg. Which is rather like the 4E realms in many ways, it's a pretty crude amputation to solve quite a lot of metaplot rot and similar issues that many people felt were issues with it.
I find it hard to accept your point when so many people, from completely disparate regions have a specific problem, with specific characters and players actions (or DMs using them, but in this case I do agree if a DM uses them in an antagonising dues ex machina like mechanic on his players the DM is certainly at fault) in one specific setting to not believe it's a "problem" with that is particularly strong in relation to the FR setting. It doesn't have to be unique to be a problem, which is what you seem to imply with other examples like Dragonlance (but again, I never ran Dragonlance so I don't know or care about whatever issues it has).
IMO, this is as ridiculous as someone implying that people who dislike the lack of detail in 4E FR aren't having a real problem with the current setting because they should write their own detail in. Yes you can write your own details in, but just because you can doesn't mean it isn't inherently a problem that many people have in the setting that those details aren't there for DMs to use out of the book.
This is the same as when you have a large amount of metaplot and high level NPCs built into a setting for many people. It's just a different kind of problem for different groups of players and DMs. That you continually insist it isn't a problem, despite the wide variety of evidence against this position is staggering. If they weren't an issue we'd still see them in 4E and the designers would not have felt the need to kill so many Chosen (among other high level NPCs), Mystra and similar. They have and that indicates to me the designers felt, as I do, those characters could become problematic in peoples games (as detailed earlier and in other threads).
That you disagree is one thing, but ultimately one side made a more persuasive argument to the designers at some point and the 4E realms as they are now shows that.
Our stance (Rin, MT, LK - I apologize if I'm reading it wrong and please correct me) is that we're amazed that so many people were having problems with the Realms setting and yet kept coming back to it instead of using the settings they did not have problems with.
I only bought the 4E realms because I wanted to have a read and the spellplague caught my interest. I actually expected them to have just shifted it onto a bunch of new high level NPCs and was utterly shocked to discover this wasn't the case (evil high level NPCs don't bother me, in fact Szass Tam has even found a proud place in one of my campaigns). In reality, I had no interest in the 4E realms at all because of the 3E realms and only really wanted the Swordmage class. That they changed everything into something I find really open and fits the way I like to write as I write most of my own NPCs, details and similar into the game as opposed to having this done for me is just a bonus. Combine this with the realms' history, which provides infinite ideas and inspiration + the new more "open" world and I am extremely pleased. I can already think of six more entirely different campaigns I want to run, including a return to Myth Drannor. Something I would have never done again in 3E.
Once again, if 5E comes out, is metaplot filled, NPC filled and such I won't be spending months here endlessly recycling the same complaints. I'll stick to my old books or move onto something else. That simple.
Don't forget Greyhawk is getting the reboot as well for 4th Edition (at least that's the unconfirmed rumor).
see my sig...
GM4PG, the issue isn't whether or not you like the new Realms or that we like the old Realms. You said yourself, (to paraphrase) that WotC changed the Realms because of the people complaining about the problems inherent in the system.
yes...and again I am sorry you guys kost somethign you liked...
But I don't see that. FR sourcebooks and novels were the 'flagship' books for WotC and where they made a bulk of their money. Ed, Elaine and RAS made bestseller lists time and again writing about the 'problematic' NPCs that bashers on the boards complained 'ruined' the setting.
exactly...those novels must kick but (I haven't read most), and if Wotc is smart they will keep pumping them out...BUT lets disconect them from the published setting...
WotC did not make the change based on the fan's input. They made the change based on what they thought would sell more books and attract new players. Just the same as when Coca-cola introduced New Coke in the 90's.
Ok...and I don't know if it worked...heck I am not sure anyone can EVER tell if it worked...by changing tot he 3 books then on to the next setting AND makeing it the living game world...there was too much going on to say what had what effect
Our stance (Rin, MT, LK - I apologize if I'm reading it wrong and please correct me) is that we're amazed that so many people were having problems with the Realms setting and yet kept coming back to it instead of using the settings they did not have problems with.
I agree 100% then...I tried the setting a few times...as a PC more often then DM, but I tried BOTH...It didn't work for us, so we moved on to other things...
By the time 4e was announced I would never have looked at FR again..then came the changes...some of witch looked like they were target at us...I still probly woudn't have looked at it...then came the Swordmage class...I had to have it...I wanted to play it so bad...so I bought it for use with other settings...then I herd how great the new realms were...So I looked again...
so again 'I AM NOT THE ENEMY'
@Aegeri-
As to your point that one side made a more persuasive argument, I seriously doubt it. My own beliefs is that the majority of the 4e team already held those beliefs, which Rich Baker acknowledged as false but present, and that thought carried the day. They weren't looking to be persuaded, they were looking for justification I think.
As to your point that one side made a more persuasive argument, I seriously doubt it. My own beliefs is that the majority of the 4e team already held those beliefs, which Rich Baker acknowledged as false but present, and that thought carried the day. They weren't looking to be persuaded, they were looking for justification I think.
That could also be equally true.
However, I also base this on my experience with another example of a complete reboot: The world of darkness. A great deal of changes in Vampire: The Requiem are about things that got frequent complaints in Vampire: The Masquerade. A good example is the origin of vampires. You were taking your life into your own hands changing that as an ST in Vampire: the Masquerade. In Requiem, the game presents numerous origins for vampires and leaves it entirely up to the Storyteller to decide which is right in his world.
I do not believe based on my experience with the numerous changed settings of the nWoD that these are changed arbitrarily.
My own take of the WoD reboot was that the spookier-than-thou types had driven the story into the ground and had to reboot to salvage the mess they made of the metaplot after having written themselves into a corner. There was nowhere left for them to go really, with the whole End of the World thing they were pushing. But then I was firmly convinced it was only a matter of time before it collapsed after MRH left for wherever he toddled off to.
A similar argument can be directed straight back at you. You're the guy who despite hacking and coughing all day denies that he's actually sick, until eventually it's almost too late to do anything and you have to hack off his gangrenous leg. Which is rather like the 4E realms in many ways, it's a pretty crude amputation to solve quite a lot of metaplot rot and similar issues that many people felt were issues with it.
-I, of course, am not hacking and/or coughing. I have never DMed in the Forgotten Realms. I'm not that interested, either, to be frank. However, if I did, I would be able to run a campaign without having Elminster, Telamont Tanthul, or whomever else barring me from doing so, and forcing me to force my hand in whatever manner. Were I hacking and/or coughing, I would not be able to do this.
I find it hard to accept your point when so many people, from completely disparate regions have a specific problem, with specific characters and players actions (or DMs using them, but in this case I do agree if a DM uses them in an antagonising dues ex machina like mechanic on his players the DM is certainly at fault) in one specific setting to not believe it's a "problem" with that is particularly strong in relation to the FR setting. It doesn't have to be unique to be a problem, which is what you seem to imply with other examples like Dragonlance (but again, I never ran Dragonlance so I don't know or care about whatever issues it has).
-As I said before, hundreds of thousands- or more likely, millions- once believed the Earth was flat. That millions of people believed the world was flat, this did not mean that the Earth was actually flat, was it? I recently learned that yawning is an internal mechanism that the brain uses to cool itself. Source, if you want it. Yawning is not because of low oxygen, high carbon dioxide levels in the lungs. There is no doubt in my mind that the second concept will continue to be perpetuated, even though it is not correct. Another example: Anastasia, the famous daughter of the Tsar, who 'disappeared' after the Russian Revolution, whose fate is unknown...Well, this is not true. Her fate was indeed discovered, and quite conclusively. Source. Is this going to change the "common fantasy" that her fate is unknown, and that she might be out there, somewhere? I have no doubt that it won't. A lot of people like to claim that perception is reality. It is absolutely not, and this people are very misguided. Only in Planescape, perhaps, is perception reality, as reality becomes mutable in many places.
IMO, this is as ridiculous as someone implying that people who dislike the lack of detail in 4E FR aren't having a real problem with the current setting because they should write their own detail in. Yes you can write your own details in, but just because you can doesn't mean it isn't inherently a problem that many people have in the setting that those details aren't there for DMs to use out of the book.
-People disliking the FRCG/FRPG is a matter of taste, which is acknowledged as a subjective matter. People having troubles with the "same old things", be them Harpers, or Elminster, or Shar, or whoever else, is labeled as an objective problem; That is, it doesn't matter who you are, or where you are, or how you play D&D, they are going to be a problem no matter what. Conversation in this, and other threads, reinforces this, in the responses that are given and made. As you find it ridiculous that someone claim that the above is an inherent problem of the setting (which it is, as it is subjective. I may not like it, but I wouldn't say it was a problem the setting has. It might be problematic for the future, however. But not a problem itself), I find it ridiculous that someone claim that the aforementioned "same old things" are inherent problems of the setting.
This is the same as when you have a large amount of metaplot and high level NPCs built into a setting for many people. It's just a different kind of problem for different groups of players and DMs. That you continually insist it isn't a problem, despite the wide variety of evidence against this position is staggering. If they weren't an issue we'd still see them in 4E and the designers would not have felt the need to kill so many Chosen (among other high level NPCs), Mystra and similar. They have and that indicates to me the designers felt, as I do, those characters could become problematic in peoples games (as detailed earlier and in other threads).
-See both above, and below: Things are commonly perpetuated that aren't true, and at least one head designers (and senior designer/person at WotC) has admitted that he doesn't see an actual problem, but an artificial problem.
That you disagree is one thing, but ultimately one side made a more persuasive argument to the designers at some point and the 4E realms as they are now shows that.
-Rich Baker has stated that the problem did not actually exist as an actual problem, but it was, rather, a meme that enough people got behind to believe as something inherently true. To date, I have yet to see in the designers' journals, answers, and so on, any one of them stating that certain NPCs were removed because they presented a barrier to DMs being able to play in the Forgotten Realms. We've been told certain things were changed to allow authors more room for their stories, or that certain things were changed to give a reason for the explanations for things that have been changing in the setting, but never that.
I find it hard to accept your point when so many people, from completely disparate regions have a specific problem, with specific characters and players actions (or DMs using them, but in this case I do agree if a DM uses them in an antagonising dues ex machina like mechanic on his players the DM is certainly at fault) in one specific setting to not believe it's a "problem" with that is particularly strong in relation to the FR setting.
A subjective problem, yes. (I wouldn't complain about a setting I don't have any problems with just out of boredom. Many of those who complain do have problems of varying degrees.) But not as in "The setting is problematic", but as in "The setting is problematic for a specific group of people." For example, I know absolutely no one who likes oysters. Come to think of it, I know very few people who have actually eaten oysters. The mere thought of bringing myself to gulp down an oyster is disgusting for me. But I wouldn't say oysters are inherently problematic. Either you like them, or you don't. (I just don't see why someone who doesn't like oysters would complain that oysters are horrible food and should be changed. Get something else to eat, for Bob's sake... (This is not directed at you, Aegeri.))
IMO, this is as ridiculous as someone implying that people who dislike the lack of detail in 4E FR aren't having a real problem with the current setting because they should write their own detail in. Yes you can write your own details in, but just because you can doesn't mean it isn't inherently a problem that many people have in the setting that those details aren't there for DMs to use out of the book.
That's actually one of the points many people don't like about the 4e approach ;)
This is the same as when you have a large amount of metaplot and high level NPCs built into a setting for many people. It's just a different kind of problem for different groups of players and DMs. That you continually insist it isn't a problem, despite the wide variety of evidence against this position is staggering.
How many times does it have to be said - by LK, by Rino, by others - that nobody denies that an FR player who claims to have a problem probably does have a problem, but that it's a subjective problem that doesn't prove that something about the setting is inherently wrong?
If they weren't an issue we'd still see them in 4E and the designers would not have felt the need to kill so many Chosen (among other high level NPCs), Mystra and similar. They have and that indicates to me the designers felt, as I do, those characters could become problematic in peoples games (as detailed earlier and in other threads).
They've said so. But that's not the only possible reason, is it? Off the top of my head one comes to mind the designers would never admit to. (I've discussed this topic numerous times before. 'twas interesting ;) )
That you disagree is one thing, but ultimately one side made a more persuasive argument to the designers at some point and the 4E realms as they are now shows that.
Unproven and unprovable. No one of us has any insight into WotC's reasons.
I only bought the 4E realms because I wanted to have a read and the spellplague caught my interest. I actually expected them to have just shifted it onto a bunch of new high level NPCs and was utterly shocked to discover this wasn't the case (evil high level NPCs don't bother me, in fact Szass Tam has even found a proud place in one of my campaigns). In reality, I had no interest in the 4E realms at all because of the 3E realms and only really wanted the Swordmage class. That they changed everything into something I find really open and fits the way I like to write as I write most of my own NPCs, details and similar into the game as opposed to having this done for me is just a bonus. Combine this with the realms' history, which provides infinite ideas and inspiration + the new more "open" world and I am extremely pleased. I can already think of six more entirely different campaigns I want to run, including a return to Myth Drannor. Something I would have never done again in 3E.
Good for you
DB
That you disagree is one thing, but ultimately one side made a more persuasive argument to the designers at some point and the 4E realms as they are now shows that.
It shows no more and no less than they thought they were including/excluding the elements that would sell most copies of the FRCS and FRPG and novels (and any future licensing, etc.).
Is anyone still claiming with a straight face that the kinds of abuses mentioned above are in accordance with how the Realms actually works and what the sources actually say?
ok so if it was the problme felt from many people...why get mad at me that WotC changed it....
Ask the people who actually are "mad at you that WotC changed it", if they even exist...
And now, I'm done with this particular conversation. It really does seem to me that you're just POed that not everyone is buying into your particular argument. Oh well.
He Did Not ask for FR to be changed - WotC decided to do so so more folks like him would pick it up again, and change their minds about running it. No-one else (AFAIK) has ever made that point before - most of the 'pre-4eFR' crowd come-off like "it sucked before, and now it's finally good"... which we know to be a false statement.
I liken this to Coke and New Coke (since folks seem to really love that comparison here). I had no problem with 'old coke' - I just preferred Pepsi. I didn't go on the Internet and complain about it, or write letters to the company - I just didn't drink Coke (unless it was all they had, which happens a lot when you eat-out).
When New Coke came out, I heard it tasted more like Pepsi. Personally, I don't believe I ever tried it - I didn't really see a point (I already liked Pesi). I guess others felt the way I did, and instead of 'stealing' all the Pepsi drinkers, they alienated the Coke drinkers (and subsequently switched back).
The Point...
But no-one blamed me or other Pepsi drinkers for changing thier product - I had nothing to do with it! It was a corporate decision - albeit a very bad one - and the people it was aimed at could care less.
This is the position I am seeing finally - no-one asked for an 'FR-lite' - but if it is in front of them, they were willing to try it (much as I would have had a new coke if thats what a restaurant put in front of me).
I still think it was a bad decision on WotC's part, but you can't blame the old FR-haters-turned-4e players - they are just using whatever is placed in front of them.
The problem I am seeing, still, is that won't that same sub-set of gamers - ones who will use whatever "flavor of the month" is out there, NOT be loyal to the brand?
Seriously, no die-hard Dragonlance Fan is going to switch to 'New FR', nor are any oyther setting-specific 'Grognards'. This sort of marketing only appeals to people who like to constantly try new things, as GMforPowergamers appears to (and correct me if I'm wrong - you did mention you run just about everything).
In a way, if most of the current crop of gamers have this same 'flightly' taste, then I suppose that WotC made the correct decision, and they will move unto the 'next great thing' when it comes out (Eberron?)
Leaving behind a used-up, withered husk of a setting to 'rot in the field'. Like Locusts... they suck the life out of something, and then move on to the next 'verdant field'.
This is brilliant marketing for WotC, because it just may add another decade or so onto an already dying genre. In the end though, the locusts will have consumed everything, and there will be no-more 'delicious new settings' to feed them, and the hobby will die.
It probably would have died either way - MORPGs are killing it - but this at least allows it a semblance of life for a few more years (and offers those working for the company a little more job security).
Hopefully, smaller companies will "keep the dream" alive, like Paizo. I think there will always be that small group of 'misfits' who will enjoy P&P games, and it's good to know that at least someone will be there to 'replant those fields' with a new crop of gamers.
Oh... and not to make anymore comaprisons with MORPGs then absolutely necessary, but they do the same thing (the smart ones, anyway). Blizzard is working on Diablo III, knowing full-well it will probably take a larger bite out of their own WoW players then it will other online games... and yet they still plan to produce it. It's simply good business to expect customers to 'move on' eventually... and thats why you create your own competition. You don't want them to 'move on' to some other company. If they are going to leave YOUR game, you want them leaving for another of your games.
This is why TSR went nuts producing settings for awhile - it was trying to grab all those sub-genre players that were leaving for White Wolf and others. Its called market-saturation. Its the reason why I have seen 7-11's across the street from each other. The new plan for WotC is a setting a year, and for the first time since all of this was announced, I actually see the logic in it.
I still don't like it, nor agree with it, but I finally understand it.
So lets leave all those pro-4eFR gamers alone - they didn't ask for this... but they are taking advantage of the situation presented them (and who can really blame them? EVERYONE wants to be an FR player/DM deep down inside). :D
That's like buying a Mac and constantly complaining about how PC Games...
Okay... I thought you were going to go the 'Mac' and Burger King route with that one...
In other words, "why buy a Mac, and then complain it's not as good as a Whopper." Either way, it works...
He Did Not ask for FR to be changed - WotC decided to do so so more folks like him would pick it up again, and change their minds about running it. (...) This is the position I am seeing finally - no-one asked for an 'FR-lite' - but if it is in front of them, they were willing to try it
I thought that should be quite clear. Some remarks may refer to those who complained and complained and complained until they got their way (whereupon they just left this message board, never to be seen again - probably they're complaining about another setting right now). But I guess that's just spillover from the years of endless discussions we've enjoyed with them. However, I thought it was clear that these remarks aren't adressed at current posters here. Speaking only for myself, I'd never accuse Aegeri, Mr_Misc & co. of having killed the Realms *shrug*
Oh... and not to make anymore comaprisons with MORPGs then absolutely necessary, but they do the same thing (the smart ones, anyway).
No, they don't :P
DB
Our stance (Rin, MT, LK - I apologize if I'm reading it wrong and please correct me) is that we're amazed that so many people were having problems with the Realms setting and yet kept coming back to it instead of using the settings they did not have problems with. That's like buying a Mac and constantly complaining about how PC Games don't care about your computer system. Sure, you can download emulators and patches out the wazoo, but if you buy a computer because you want to play games, then you go with the computer that plays games best.
-In the deluge of posts and sentence fragments I was not understanding, I missed this. The analogy is indeed a good one, that encapsulates what I meant when I said, "As to people wanting to play in setting that have things they don't like- or do anything else that has elements that they dislike- as that is how I interpreted that, I have no clue. That's always puzzled me."
I only buy Fords... I could give a rat's arse what a new Chevy looks like.
Thats the part that I'm still having trouble with - did all those "FR-dislikers" simply dislike the work involved in learning about the setting? Obviously it wasn't the setting itself they disliked, else they would have never bothered with it again.
If anything, it appears to me that it was the die-hard fans that those 'casual fans' disliked so vehemently.
I still think they should have just created an enirely new setting for all those people who disliked FR, but whatever, that wasn't our call. Obviously they didn't want to shoot their novel-sales in the foot by herding everyone to a new setting, so this is more like the designers trying to 'have their cake and eat it too'.
At the end of the day, though, it was the 'die-hards' that were buying those novels, not the casual fans they are now catering to.
I wish them luck... the whole plan seems to have not been fully thought-out very well. Game sales may go up for a time, but I can almost gaurantee novels sales are going to plumet.
After all, why would the 'lore-lite' crowd even want them?
No, they don't :P
Not one a year (which is a bit much), but they do give us two or three 'expansions' that amount to much the same thing (new areas to play in), all the while working on one of their other fanchises (like Starcraft, or Diablo).
The idea is to keep dazzling us with new 'Shiney'.
Is anyone still claiming with a straight face that the kinds of abuses mentioned above are in accordance with how the Realms actually works and what the sources actually say?
Yep.
Because those sources don't trump the limited knowledge a player (or a DM) brings to the typical D&D gaming table.
I never could understand the assumption that all gamers everywhere are privy to the same set of knowledge and information (spread over many, many sources, including the internetz), much less that they'd go out of their way to get it before sitting down to play D&D.
I'm fully supportive of the idea that it was deeply and personally Misc's fault that the setting was maimed and eviscerated.
Stigger?! SHHH! That secret's not supposed to come out until just before 5E is released!
-I, of course, am not hacking and/or coughing. I have never DMed in the Forgotten Realms. I'm not that interested, either, to be frank. However, if I did, I would be able to run a campaign without having Elminster, Telamont Tanthul, or whomever else barring me from doing so, and forcing me to force my hand in whatever manner.
I see you've not really listened to the arguments that have been presented.
Again, when your players have different ideas you have a problem. You then have to solve that problem and decide what to do about it.
-As I said before, hundreds of thousands- or more likely, millions- once believed the Earth was flat.
Nice strawman, but I'm not falling for it.
I would appreciate it if you answered the argument, because that the earth is flat is not an equivalent scenario as this is (as has been pointed out, something that will vary on a case by case basis). For example, we can take 100 groups playing FR and determine that X percentage of those find the NPCs are an issue. IMO, that's percentage (given how frequent it appears) is enough for me to say with a degree of confidence it was an issue for many individual players and DMs over time.
You can observe the earth from space a million times and it's never going to be flat. You could survey a million DMs who played or ran FR and I will bet you a good chunk of them would have problems with those high level NPCs. That effectively means that your analogy is thus invalid and is merely attempting to distract from the point being made. Unless you want to argue that nobody ever had a problem with players or DMs misusing high level NPCs in the realms in various ways?
A lot of people like to claim that perception is reality. It is absolutely not, and this people are very misguided. Only in Planescape, perhaps, is perception reality, as reality becomes mutable in many places.
In every single case there is strong scientific and similar evidence for those positions. In this case, there is no strong evidence that you are correct at all.
All you're doing is insisting you are right and that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. Yet given that my experience and many others say otherwise, that these characters have been problematic for a variety of reasons and that they are no longer present (have been removed) is strong evidence this problem was "real" enough to actually change things with the game as it is.
Our perceptions are just as correct and given that it seemed the designers agreed (by the way things are now), I view that as stronger evidence than you simply asserting to the contrary.
-People disliking the FRCG/FRPG is a matter of taste, which is acknowledged as a subjective matter.
Funny, because I disagree. I can, completely objectively of my own opinion on the current 4E book acknowledge it has many problems for people. I don't view this as "subjective" or a "false perception" or anything else. It's exactly true that for many people it's going to be a real problem that there aren't a lot of good aligned NPCs detailed in the book. For some people, it's going to be exactly true that for many people the books general lack of fine lore and detail is going to be a real problem.
I can put aside my particular likes and dislikes to objectively think about things. I can acknowledge that having high level superhero like NPCs is a major problem for many people (and my personal experience proves that to myself anyway). I can acknowledge that the opposite is also a problem with the 4E realms for people who used those characters (And I could see how someone could use Mystra/Chosen etc to add to a game and not detract from it).
To return to your attempted strawman of the above, it's worth noting that by your logic if a plane has a fatal fault and only 1/100 planes crashes out of the sky and kills all onboard, the plane does not have a problem as it didn't happen to every plane. Just because not every plane gets the same issue all the time, does not mean something will not be an issue or problem.
People having troubles with the "same old things", be them Harpers, or Elminster, or Shar, or whoever else, is labeled as an objective problem; That is, it doesn't matter who you are, or where you are, or how you play D&D, they are going to be a problem no matter what.
No offense, but when you say things like this I just have to get frustrated because I've never wrote this anywhere. In fact, I just responded completely to the opposite above (and in the post you are responding to: missing a key part of my argument entirely).
Again to use a more appropriate analogy to comparing things that are scientifically demonstrable the same way every time (as your examples were), some aircraft had their cargo bay doors blow out potentially causing explosive decompression. It does not mean that all aircraft would have the problem. It does not follow that because all aircraft do not have the problem that it was not actually a problem with the [specific model] aircraft in many cases.
As you find it ridiculous that someone claim that the above is an inherent problem of the setting (which it is, as it is subjective. I may not like it, but I wouldn't say it was a problem the setting has. It might be problematic for the future, however. But not a problem itself),
Reading what I wrote again, I clearly didn't put that clearly enough.
I am actually arguing absolutely the opposite. I'm saying that it is ridiculous that someone claims that the lack of detail isn't a problem. Because I can drop my personal opinions and objectively say "Yes, that is a problem". Is it a problem for me? No. Does it not being a problem for me make it not a problem anymore objectively? No. Is it going to be a big problem with the 4E realms, shared by many individual DMs and players? Yes.
Does that make it a problem with the 4E realms objectively?
Yes.
This is IMO where we entirely differ. What's not a problem for me doesn't mean I come here and insist it isn't a problem for everyone else. Objectively, I can say that many things frequently complained about with the 4E realms, the 100 year time jump as one example are problems with the setting as they are now and perfectly legitimate.
Let's see how I would objectively look at this:
Me: I was not running a game pre-4E.
Someone else: Was running a game pre-4E.
Me: The 100 year time jump doesn't affect anything, I can just start my games in the new timeline without issue.
SE: Now has to decide what to do about their campaign. Do they like the time jump? Do they like how the canon proceeded (perhaps it blew up a region they were currently adventuring in)? Do they want to move forwards?
So I can see, entirely objectively of my own opinions, that someone else is going to face a major problem from something that doesn't affect me at all and never is going to. Does it mean the 100 year time jump isn't a fatal problem with 4E for some people and their games?
Nope.
Not at all. Because for that other DM, it's a real absolute killer and a huge problem with the 4E realms specifically. When people complain here about the 100 year time jump it's perfectly legitimate: It's an example of a real problem with the 4E realms. It's not a problem for me, that doesn't magically make it not a problem for everyone else. IMO, that's just the same in the opposite scenario, where there is too much world detail cramping my ability to write in what I want (due to canon contradictions, high level NPCs and the likes).
Again, that's a problem for me and is a problem with the setting (as they are [or were] a part of it, like it or not). It is not a problem for everyone and I've never claimed it was. It does not mean however, it isn't actually a problem at all.
Things are commonly perpetuated that aren't true, and at least one head designers (and senior designer/person at WotC) has admitted that he doesn't see an actual problem, but an artificial problem.
That's still a problem and IMO, it's caused by the way the setting is written because it reminds me of some issues I've seen with Vampire: the Masquerade games (though that's not entirely fair as it's a different kind of issue there and I'll acknowledge that).
-Rich Baker has stated that the problem did not actually exist as an actual problem, but it was, rather, a meme that enough people got behind to believe as something inherently true.
Personally, I do disagree with him and I think it's more than a legitimate complaint or problem many people experienced.
To date, I have yet to see in the designers' journals, answers, and so on, any one of them stating that certain NPCs were removed because they presented a barrier to DMs being able to play in the Forgotten Realms.
And yet they were, in a complete 180 from the previous settings. I can't see why if this wasn't a real issue and they didn't feel it needed to be addressed (EG: Just false perception) that they did so much to remove Mystra and the Chosen so specifically. In many ways, it's a scapel cut (albeit, one that was used to amputate a leg and so is not pretty at all), because the focus on NPC deaths in 4E is strongly focused on Mystra and the Chosen in particular.
I am not saying this is the correct interpretation, but like certain planes that have a problem that won't actually necessarily destroy every plane, I'm saying this is the interpretation that has the best evidence from what we know about how the realms were changed for 4E. Just like how the air crash investigators would have recommended the plane change its design to prevent the problem: even if every plane didn't suffer from it.
If, on the hand, you had no problem what-so-ever, then you assume that the other person's problem only exists in their mind.
It's kind of like me telling a smoker "just put the godamn cigarette out and STOP!".
Its easy for me to say... I'm not the one with the problem.
I think thats why we will never have both sides see 100% eye-to-eye, and everyone should just agree to disagree. Unless you have a problem that has a very real physical manifestation (even if it's mentally based), you'll never except the other person's problem as anything but 'perceived'.
I just thank god I'm perfect. :P
As ludicrous as that sounds to some of us, I have seen similar things, although much more with Dragonlance the FR (which is why I detest DL - I had a very bad gaming experience with one group).
Now I know a group of DL die-hards would tell me there was no such problem, but since I had it, and saw it for myself, I know it was a problem, so I can relate to the predicament the FR (wanna-be) DMs have when trying to run it with certain 'knowledgable' players (read: pricks).
I see you've not really listened to the arguments that have been presented.
Again, when your players have different ideas you have a problem. You then have to solve that problem and decide what to do about it.
-I don’t necessarily consider players having ideas different than mine problems. When my players have ideas that are different then mine, one of two things happen, depending on the context of the difference, and all of that:
1) I correct them, and that’s that. (ie, “I thought it was going to take us two weeks to get there?”. “No, it only takes one week.”)
2) I correct them, they dispute it, and we take a look at it after the game. (ie, “I thought it was going to take us two weeks to get there?”. “No, it only takes one week.” “I’m almost fully sure that I wrote in the notes that it is going to take two weeks.” “Well, regardless, we can take a look at it later. Either way, you arrive with no problems during your trip.)
3) I correct them, they dispute it, and we take a look at it immediately, pausing the game. (ie, ““I thought it was going to take us two weeks to get there?”. “No, it only takes one week.” “I’m almost fully sure that I wrote in the notes that it is going to take two weeks.” “Fine, let’s take a look at the notes.” [Looks in notes])
Nice strawman, but I'm not falling for it.
-Strawman nothing. The original post in question, that I first used this in response to, makes claims that, with enough belief, fiction becomes fact. That is, that perception becomes reality. That, since enough people think something, it must be true. This is absolutely not true, as demonstrated above. Millions of individuals once believed the Earth to be flat. Regardless of their belief, the Earth never was flat, nor did it become flat because of their belief. Thus, the concept that perception creates reality is inherently false, and that the notion can be thrown out from any further debate on this matter.
I would appreciate it if you answered the argument, because that the earth is flat is not an equivalent scenario as this is (as has been pointed out, something that will vary on a case by case basis). For example, we can take 100 groups playing FR and determine that X percentage of those find the NPCs are an issue. IMO, that's percentage (given how frequent it appears) is enough for me to say with a degree of confidence it was an issue for many individual players and DMs over time.
You can observe the earth from space a million times and it's never going to be flat. You could survey a million DMs who played or ran FR and I will bet you a good chunk of them would have problems with those high level NPCs. That effectively means that your analogy is thus invalid and is merely attempting to distract from the point being made. Unless you want to argue that nobody ever had a problem with players or DMs misusing high level NPCs in the realms in various ways?
-That a percentage of individual DMs and a percentage of individual players come to the conclusion that something is a problem in their game demonstrates that the above is not an inherent problem, but rather, a subjective problem to those specific individuals. I don’t consider something that happens only to some people, and not to others, inherently problematic. I mean, with that logic, anything and everything can be inherently problematic. Goblins sometimes cause total player kills at first level. That this happens sometimes, I wouldn’t say that Goblins are inherently problematic, and that something should be done about their stats/behavior/whatever else. At Level 1, anyone who is Level 2 or high theoretically and potentially ‘outshines’ the Level 1 PCs. That this happens, I wouldn’t say that NPCs existing that are of a higher level than the PCs are inherently problematic, or that something should be done about NPCs with levels higher than the PCs. If you wanted to get down to that nitty-gritty a level, people could find problems with every little minor thing. That they can, would I believe that these things are inherently dangerous for playing a D&D game in? No.
In every single case there is strong scientific and similar evidence for those positions. In this case, there is no strong evidence that you are correct at all.
All you're doing is insisting you are right and that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. Yet given that my experience and many others say otherwise, that these characters have been problematic for a variety of reasons and that they are no longer present (have been removed) is strong evidence this problem was "real" enough to actually change things with the game as it is.
Our perceptions are just as correct and given that it seemed the designers agreed (by the way things are now), I view that as stronger evidence than you simply asserting to the contrary.
-None of this is relevant to my statement. Perception is not reality. This is a fact, as demonstrated by individuals believing that the Earth was once flat. That they believed the Earth was flat did not make the Earth actually flat. People high on various drugs sometimes believe that they can fly. And, thinking so, they jump off high places. And, they die, or get hurt. That they think they can fly naturally doesn’t actually mean that they can.
-Concerning the evidence you are citing: People finding problems with something, while others don’t, demonstrates that the perceived problem is a subjective problem, not a problem inherent to the characters, setting, designers, etc. All airplanes can, given the right conditions, crash. Sometimes, these conditions are met. Other times, they are not. Would I say that traveling by airplane is inherently dangerous? No. I, personally, am afraid of heights, and afraid of traveling in airplanes, but airplanes are the safest mode of travel. Poisons are sometimes released into the air, that are harmful to people. Does this make breathing a dangerous thing to do?
Funny, because I disagree. I can, completely objectively of my own opinion on the current 4E book acknowledge it has many problems for people. I don't view this as "subjective" or a "false perception" or anything else. It's exactly true that for many people it's going to be a real problem that there aren't a lot of good aligned NPCs detailed in the book. For some people, it's going to be exactly true that for many people the books general lack of fine lore and detail is going to be a real problem.
I can put aside my particular likes and dislikes to objectively think about things. I can acknowledge that having high level superhero like NPCs is a major problem for many people (and my personal experience proves that to myself anyway). I can acknowledge that the opposite is also a problem with the 4E realms for people who used those characters (And I could see how someone could use Mystra/Chosen etc to add to a game and not detract from it).
-An opinion cannot be objective. The definition of objectivism is that a concept is not “tainted” by a conscious entity. Being as that opinions are what we, conscious entities, think, they cannot be untouched by conscious entities. Thus, opinions cannot be objective.
-An opinion can use logic that is grounded in logical thought, all of that that is based on neutral logic and as objective facts as the person can find to base them on, but opinions can never be objective. Making an opinion that is grounded in logic and non-biased, and all of that, that is very good. It would be great if everyone, all the time, thought like this.
To return to your attempted strawman of the above, it's worth noting that by your logic if a plane has a fatal fault and only 1/100 planes crashes out of the sky and kills all onboard, the plane does not have a problem as it didn't happen to every plane. Just because not every plane gets the same issue all the time, does not mean something will not be an issue or problem.
-Poisons are sometimes released into the air, that are harmful to people. Chernobyl released tons of radiation into the air that caused some major problems in the Ukraine. Does this make breathing a dangerous thing to do? Does this make living an inherently dangerous thing to do?
No offense, but when you say things like this I just have to get frustrated because I've never wrote this anywhere. In fact, I just responded completely to the opposite above (and in the post you are responding to: missing a key part of my argument entirely).
-This is the topic of discussion: The Chosen of Mystra, the Harpers, Elminster, followers of Shar, whomever, are problems to ‘your’ campaign, and to the setting in general.
Again to use a more appropriate analogy to comparing things that are scientifically demonstrable the same way every time (as your examples were), some aircraft had their cargo bay doors blow out potentially causing explosive decompression. It does not mean that all aircraft would have the problem. It does not follow that because all aircraft do not have the problem that it was not actually a problem with the [specific model] aircraft in many cases.
-Did the pilots use their users manuals (Forgotten Realms products stating the ‘Concerns of the Mighty’, as that one sidebar is named)? Were the pilots trained in using these vehicles (read up and are understanding of the setting, with the whos, the whats, and so on)? Are their copilots trained in using these vehicles (read up on the setting, and understand the whos, whats, an so on).
-In the Forgotten Realms game that I am in, our characters met with Tethyrian nobility. When the DM was speaking as a specific individual, he mentioned that he knows what he is talking about; That he spent years as a scribe of Elminster! My character (A Calashite) looked at him, and said, “Who?”. Harpers and northern magicians aren’t welcome in the area. The Tethyrian in our party also did the same. The extraplanar (from Sigil) member of the party was similarly stymied, as was the “country bumpkin” character.
-There is no doubt that DMs can use Elminster (or anyone else!) in a problematic and abusive way. I never claimed that this was never the case. There’s always “that guy” out there. Does his mere existence, and others who are similar, spell problems for things? If a person wants to make problems, sure. If a person doesn’t, maybe not. If a person isn’t meaning to, maybe, maybe not. Does his mere existence, and others who are similar, mark a problem that plagues the setting? No. Why? Because, not everyone has these problems. When the nuclear reactor a Chernobyl gave way and poisoned the air in the area, did that make breathing a inherently dangerous thing to do, for me, who was not even born yet- but pretending that I was, thousands of miles away and such?
Reading what I wrote again, I clearly didn't put that clearly enough.
I am actually arguing absolutely the opposite. I'm saying that it is ridiculous that someone claims that the lack of detail isn't a problem. Because I can drop my personal opinions and objectively say "Yes, that is a problem". Is it a problem for me? No. Does it not being a problem for me make it not a problem anymore objectively? No. Is it going to be a big problem with the 4E realms, shared by many individual DMs and players? Yes.
Does that make it a problem with the 4E realms objectively?
Yes.
This is IMO where we entirely differ. What's not a problem for me doesn't mean I come here and insist it isn't a problem for everyone else. Objectively, I can say that many things frequently complained about with the 4E realms, the 100 year time jump as one example are problems with the setting as they are now and perfectly legitimate.
Let's see how I would objectively look at this:
Me: I was not running a game pre-4E.
Someone else: Was running a game pre-4E.
Me: The 100 year time jump doesn't affect anything, I can just start my games in the new timeline without issue.
SE: Now has to decide what to do about their campaign. Do they like the time jump? Do they like how the canon proceeded (perhaps it blew up a region they were currently adventuring in)? Do they want to move forwards?
So I can see, entirely objectively of my own opinions, that someone else is going to face a major problem from something that doesn't affect me at all and never is going to. Does it mean the 100 year time jump isn't a fatal problem with 4E for some people and their games?
Nope.
Not at all. Because for that other DM, it's a real absolute killer and a huge problem with the 4E realms specifically. When people complain here about the 100 year time jump it's perfectly legitimate: It's an example of a real problem with the 4E realms. It's not a problem for me, that doesn't magically make it not a problem for everyone else. IMO, that's just the same in the opposite scenario, where there is too much world detail cramping my ability to write in what I want (due to canon contradictions, high level NPCs and the likes).
Again, that's a problem for me and is a problem with the setting (as they are [or were] a part of it, like it or not). It is not a problem for everyone and I've never claimed it was. It does not mean however, it isn't actually a problem at all.
-You cannot speak objectively, and state with clarity that something is a problem. Again, I don’t like the lack of detail in the 4e books, and I, personally, find that problematic. Do I think this is an inherent problem, however? No. Why is a lack of detail going to be inherently problematic? A lot of people, here and elsewhere, are complaining about the lack of detail in the 4e books. Does that make it a problem inherent to the books and the setting? No. My opinion, your opinion, Markus’ opinion, Stigger’s opinion, whoever’s opinion, they are not objective truth. That is, because any of us state that something is a problem, that doesn’t actually make it a problem. It can be problematic to us, but that doesn’t make it an actual problem with the books/setting/rules themselves.
-When I complain about the 104 year increase in the setting’s timeline, is it a problem for me? Yes, I consider it problematic. Is it a problem for others? Yes, others often agree. Is it a problem for everyone? No, others cite that they do not disagree with the increase of the timeline by 104 years. All of this combined, is this an inherently a problem? That is something that I, you, no one, can state.
That's still a problem and IMO, it's caused by the way the setting is written because it reminds me of some issues I've seen with Vampire: the Masquerade games (though that's not entirely fair as it's a different kind of issue there and I'll acknowledge that).
-I’m not familiar with any of that, but it’s not really here nor there, and these points, I’m pretty sure, are discussed elsewhere in my responses and your responses.
Personally, I do disagree with him and I think it's more than a legitimate complaint or problem many people experienced.
And yet they were, in a complete 180 from the previous settings. I can't see why if this wasn't a real issue and they didn't feel it needed to be addressed (EG: Just false perception) that they did so much to remove Mystra and the Chosen so specifically. In many ways, it's a scapel cut (albeit, one that was used to amputate a leg and so is not pretty at all), because the focus on NPC deaths in 4E is strongly focused on Mystra and the Chosen in particular.
I am not saying this is the correct interpretation, but like certain planes that have a problem that won't actually necessarily destroy every plane, I'm saying this is the interpretation that has the best evidence from what we know about how the realms were changed for 4E. Just like how the air crash investigators would have recommended the plane change its design to prevent the problem: even if every plane didn't suffer from it.
-Why not say, “It’s just false perception”, and leave it at that? If Ed Greenwood, or Rich Baker, or whoever else, wrote in a DRAGON article, or wrote a forward to the FRGP/FRPG, or where ever else, all of the same things that I’ve been writing, would you believe them and accept them any more than you are right now? Do you think other people, who weren’t necessarily educated, or predisposed to the setting, would have believed whatever that they would write? Or, even read whatever they wrote, already believing ahead of time that the Forgotten Realms is an impenetrable setting where DMs need to read 100 books, and have everything on hand, and players need to keep themselves extremely localized and low-key, lest higher level NPCs come along and do everything for them, thus negating any reason for those NPCs in the first place? Both characterizations are almost word-for-word two or three different summations I’ve heard others give for the setting, or why they don’t like it.
-I’m probably not going to be around the next day or so either, so you better not get too mixed up with other discussions while I am gone! I’ll respond to what you respond to eventually!!
Does this make breathing a dangerous thing to do? Does this make living an inherently dangerous thing to do?
Yes, and yes. Pollution isn't good for you, and life isn't safe since disaster can strike you anywhere... :P
As to the rest of it, a lot of it depends on how you define what constitutes a problem. Seems a bit semantical at this point, but I'd tend to side with LK on the point that if its not a problem for everyone, then the problem is subjective, though I do see your point there Aegeri. Seems we pretty much agree on the core issue, and that its just how we choose to define and phrase things where the argument lies.
I don't recall anyone really saying that a problem didn't exist, it was just what actually caused the problem that we differ on. When it comes down to it, we're all kind of saying the same thing, its just how we say it that really differs.
Strawman nothing. The original post in question, that I first used this in response to, makes claims that, with enough belief, fiction becomes fact.
Wow, that's the biggest strawman of my argument you could possibly come up with. Nowhere did I ever claim such a thing period. Not to mention you carry on the same irrelevant strawman I already showed the weaknesses of as well.
Again, your argument is more akin to saying if enough planes don't always blow up because of a specific design fault, then none of those planes would blow up and anyone who says they did is just presenting a "false perception".
Thus, the concept that perception creates reality is inherently false, and that the notion can be thrown out from any further debate on this matter.
Only if it had relevance to my argument, which it doesn't.
That a percentage of individual DMs and a percentage of individual players come to the conclusion that something is a problem in their game demonstrates that the above is not an inherent problem, but rather, a subjective problem to those specific individuals
I've already answered this.
Again, just because you don't think it's a problem doesn't mean it isn't. That's what it really comes down to at this point. You're doing the same thing you are trying to accuse me of, saying your "perception is reality". The problem is the only perception you accept as reality is yours.
Who proved your "perception" was correct out of curiosity? Where is your satellite photos and similar equivalent that demonstrates the earth is round in the context of this argument?
Because you certainly haven't got any proof like that I can see.
None of this is relevant to my statement.
I'm sorry, yes it is.
I am not responding to you repeatedly using the same flawed strawman of my argument either. I've already explained how your insistence this is equivalent to the earth being flat is incorrect.
An opinion cannot be objective. The definition of objectivism is that a concept is not “tainted” by a conscious entity. Being as that opinions are what we, conscious entities, think, they cannot be untouched by conscious entities. Thus, opinions cannot be objective.
Quite true, which is why I said I don't look at the setting from my personal opinion but instead objectively. None of this has anything at all to do with my argument except to distract from the point.
Poisons are sometimes released into the air, that are harmful to people. Chernobyl released tons of radiation into the air that caused some major problems in the Ukraine. Does this make breathing a dangerous thing to do? Does this make living an inherently dangerous thing to do?
This is another strawman. Please cease making strawmans and stick to the points being made.
However, I'd like to point out that just because many other reactors in the same sort of era as Chernobyl haven't blown up, it doesn't mean that certain safety and similar practices won't be a problem in those reactors. To return to my actual argument again, just because not every plane crashes because of the same design fault, it doesn't mean that it isn't a fault.
This is the topic of discussion: The Chosen of Mystra, the Harpers, Elminster, followers of Shar, whomever, are problems to ‘your’ campaign, and to the setting in general.
You missed the point again.
You tried to say I said these were a problem no matter what in your first statement. I pointed out to you I've never said that anywhere, that it will only affect some people and not others.
We'll move on.
Did the pilots use their users manuals (Forgotten Realms products stating the ‘Concerns of the Mighty’, as that one sidebar is named)? Were the pilots trained in using these vehicles (read up and are understanding of the setting, with the whos, the whats, and so on)? Are their copilots trained in using these vehicles (read up on the setting, and understand the whos, whats, an so on).
No, it's a design fault (The specific example is with a specific flaw in the doors of the DC-10, that caused explosive decompression in severe cases when it malfunctioned. It has been since corrected).
Which is what I was getting at. Just because you didn't think X is a fault as you never personally crashed while flying Y plane, doesn't mean it wasn't a fault in general for other pilots.
The setting is more akin to the plane than anything else, hence my analogy.
And again, I'm not responding to your strawmans.
You cannot speak objectively, and state with clarity that something is a problem.
I believe I can and in fact, I believe I am more objective and fair about my viewpoint than you are. I can acknowledge not only that a setting I really like as it is now has lots of disadvantages and issues that older fans would have with it, but that these are perfectly legitimate.
Your response to me thus far seems to go back and forward:
1) Maintain a false strawman of my arguments, that really has nothing to do with what I've argued to be frank.
2) Maintain that "perception does not equal reality", except when it is your perception, which must be right. Your evidence for position 2 is distinctly lacking in this regard.
Both of these are not persuasive.
Again, I don’t like the lack of detail in the 4e books, and I, personally, find that problematic. Do I think this is an inherent problem, however? No. Why is a lack of detail going to be inherently problematic? A lot of people, here and elsewhere, are complaining about the lack of detail in the 4e books. Does that make it a problem inherent to the books and the setting? No.
Here is where we disagree again, because I do in fact view this as being "yes". It is indeed a considerable issue, especially for people who appreciated and wanted this sort of detail, which was a common feature of the former realms settings but is now not a feature of 4E. So I disagree entirely with you here and feel it is more than objective and fair to hold an opinion there is insufficient detail for people.
Just as having the JLF around, the overall metaplot and similar is a problem in the core setting of 3rd edition for a lot of people.
When I complain about the 104 year increase in the setting’s timeline, is it a problem for me? Yes, I consider it problematic. Is it a problem for others? Yes, others often agree. Is it a problem for everyone? No, others cite that they do not disagree with the increase of the timeline by 104 years. All of this combined, is this an inherently a problem? That is something that I, you, no one, can state.
I disagree again. Objectively, I can say it definitely is and even if I don't think it's an issue myself (personally, it isn't), I can think of numerous ways it could easily affect a lot of peoples games.
I have no problem calling an issue an issue, when it is an issue for a good number of people. Again, what I think isn't reality to return to your strawman of my argument. In reality, you are doing what you accuse me of. I can see how something would be an issue in one hand and a benefit in the other.
Again, you can't seem to get past any concept beyond a black and white. It's either a problem for everyone or it's not a problem. Returning to my actual argument, the faults with numerous airplanes are often found in individual crashes. Just because such faults only cause an accident in a minority of cases (although in relation to the FR argument, this is actually probably a lot higher) doesn't mean it wasn't a fault.
Why not say, “It’s just false perception”, and leave it at that?
Because it's not "false", only in your opinion and some others is it. Again, you complain endlessly about us making our perception reality. Have you never considered the opposite, that you're just denying reality on exactly the same basis?
Quite frankly, I can equally say that your opinion they weren't a problem is just your "false perception". We can then run around the mulberry bush all day with that.
Is anyone still claiming with a straight face that the kinds of abuses mentioned above are in accordance with how the Realms actually works and what the sources actually say?
Yep.
Because those sources don't trump the limited knowledge a player (or a DM) brings to the typical D&D gaming table.
I never could understand the assumption that all gamers everywhere are privy to the same set of knowledge and information (spread over many, many sources, including the internetz), much less that they'd go out of their way to get it before sitting down to play D&D.
Yes, most people have limited knowledge of the Realms, and some of them, influenced by internet hearsay, get wrong ideas about it. Who's saying different? The exact processes of this have their own interest, but they're hard to do more than speculate on.
My question is trying to distinguish that from whether anyone here thinks those ideas match how the Realms actually works. It's not that one point trumps the other, it's just the one I'm more interested in, and the one I'm trying to clarify right now. Based on the rest of your post, your answer to that is no.
Quite frankly, I can equally say that your opinion they weren't a problem is just your "false perception". We can then run around the mulberry bush all day with that.
Right. If anyone is claiming the kinds of breakdowns mentioned above are in accordance with the Realms itself, they'd best argue that, using the Realms sources, if they want anyone else to agree with them.
Again, just because you don't think it's a problem doesn't mean it isn't. That's what it really comes down to at this point. You're doing the same thing you are trying to accuse me of, saying your "perception is reality". The problem is the only perception you accept as reality is yours.
I'm impressed, Aegeri. How detailed, impersonal and matter-of-factly do LK's responses have to be for you to not twist his words?
Here, let me quote a rather vital part of LK's last input:You cannot speak objectively, and state with clarity that something is a problem. Again, I don’t like the lack of detail in the 4e books, and I, personally, find that problematic. Do I think this is an inherent problem, however? No. Why is a lack of detail going to be inherently problematic? A lot of people, here and elsewhere, are complaining about the lack of detail in the 4e books. Does that make it a problem inherent to the books and the setting? No. My opinion, your opinion, Markus’ opinion, Stigger’s opinion, whoever’s opinion, they are not objective truth. That is, because any of us state that something is a problem, that doesn’t actually make it a problem. It can be problematic to us, but that doesn’t make it an actual problem with the books/setting/rules themselves.
So, since LK explicitly stated that neither what you think is a problem nor what he thinks is a problem nor what anyone else thinks is a problem actually constitutes an objective problem, maybe we could just take it from there? Because if we agreed that anything becomes a problem as soon as one individual considers it problematic, everything would be a problem, wouldn't it? 4e's lack of lore is problematic for me, et voilá - suddenly it's a problem, if you think it's a strength of the new approach or not. You have a problem, you just refuse to accept that it's a problem, right?
Who proved your "perception" was correct out of curiosity? Where is your satellite photos and similar equivalent that demonstrates the earth is round in the context of this argument? Because you certainly haven't got any proof like that I can see.
When it comes to the question of what genres you like in film or literature and what genres you don't like, or what a game setting has to be like in order to appeal to you, it all comes down to taste - and no one's taste is "righter" than someone else's, therefore the superiority of one's taste cannot be proven. (I'm talking about taste as in preference here. Of course any story can be told in an abysmally clumsy way, and no one would argue that Plan 9 From Outer Space or Attack of the Killer Tomatoes are ingenious works of art. However, you can't prove that, say, the fantasy genre is better than film noir.)
Same with the flat Earth. Back then, before Columbus, you could believe that the Earth was flat because nobody could confirm or disprove it. You can believe in higher beings, for example, but neither can you prove that they exist, nor can atheists prove that they don't.
Quite true, which is why I said I don't look at the setting from my personal opinion but instead objectively. None of this has anything at all to do with my argument except to distract from the point.
And as LK explained, you can't do that. No one can. You can objectively look at the number two and claim that it's higher than number one. That's provable. You can objectively look at a Ferrari and claim that it's faster than a truck. That's provable. You can't, however, objectively look at the scorsese movies and claim that they're better than the Indiana Jones trilogy because they are sophisticated milieu studies and the Indy movies are "just" popcorn entertainment. Objectivity is not possible here.
And what's happening here is that some people like Ferraris better because they're much faster than trucks, while others like trucks better because you can transport lots of stuff with them. If nobody tried to claim that "objectively the Ferrari / truck is better because..." we'd all be fine.
I have no problem calling an issue an issue, when it is an issue for a good number of people. I can see how something would be an issue in one hand and a benefit in the other.
That sounds much better
Again, you can't seem to get past any concept beyond a black and white. It's either a problem for everyone or it's not a problem. Returning to my actual argument, the faults with numerous airplanes are often found in individual crashes. Just because such faults only cause an accident in a minority of cases (although in relation to the FR argument, this is actually probably a lot higher) doesn't mean it wasn't a fault.
I don't think that's a good analogy, because you can't say that some pilots even liked this fault because it made flying much easier and entertaining for them, thus becoming a strength of the plane. What you're talking about is a provable fault - one that will have a negative result. If we need more analogies, why not use those which pertain to individual taste? Say a conservative businessman visits a heavy metal nightclub, or a metalhead visits a jazz lounge - it will become quite clear they'll soon have a problem on their hands because they visited places that were not meant for them to begin with. But a metal club isn't inherently problematic because businessmen won't fit in, no matter what they do. Neither are jazz lounges problematic because metalheads won't fit in.
DB
I'm impressed, Aegeri. How detailed, impersonal and matter-of-factly do LK's responses have to be for you to not twist his words?
Detailed? I didn't see much in the way of supporting evidence for his argument.
Restating the same strawman that I've already explained is not a good analogy is not "detailed" either. Nor is writing paragraphs that have little to do (actually nothing) with the argument that was made. Nor is stating that your view of reality is correct and claiming everyone who disagrees with you is wrong, while simultaneously failing to support that position is "detailed" either.
Also, I'll requote my response to the part of the argument you quoted from LK:
Here is where we disagree again, because I do in fact view this as being "yes". It is indeed a considerable issue, especially for people who appreciated and wanted this sort of detail, which was a common feature of the former realms settings but is now not a feature of 4E. So I disagree entirely with you here and feel it is more than objective and fair to hold an opinion there is insufficient detail for people.
Just as having the JLF around, the overall metaplot and similar is a problem in the core setting of 3rd edition for a lot of people.
It is quite reasonable based on what I have read (and objectively) that the FRCG isn't as detailed as previous supplements. We can even prove this if we're bored enough with the wordcount and amount of information in 4E compared to 3E. Heck, that's not even an issue at all, because 3E has years of books and 4E has a few dragon articles and 2 books total. So yes, it is objectively and provably a problem.
Just like it is objectively and provably a problem that many high level NPCs and metaplot can have negative impact on someones game from the huge amount of source material and similar in the 3E realms.
So, since LK explicitly stated that neither what you think is a problem nor what he thinks is a problem nor what anyone else thinks is a problem actually constitutes an objective problem, maybe we could just take it from there?
I do not agree with this position at all. That's the 'problem' here.
4e's lack of lore is problematic for me, et voilá - suddenly it's a problem, if you think it's a strength of the new approach or not.
That's basically what I already argued when you distill it out into this statement. Also, it's not just you, it's a large amount of other people as well. That there is a good amount of people who have this issue, just like what we've been saying repeatedly about how high level NPCs built into a setting (and metaplot, by extension) can be a problem in other peoples games. If it was a singular or rare issue, maybe not. That there are quite a few people who would have the same issue and in fact do, that shows me there is good evidence behind it being a real issue.
When it comes to the question of what genres you like in film or literature and what genres you don't like, or what a game setting has to be like in order to appeal to you, it all comes down to taste - and no one's taste is "righter" than someone else's, therefore the superiority of one's taste cannot be proven.
This, like much of LKs "rebuttal" is irrelevant to my argument.
Where, in any part of my post anywhere, did I argue anyones taste being superior?
Same with the flat Earth. Back then, before Columbus, you could believe that the Earth was flat because nobody could confirm or disprove it. You can believe in higher beings, for example, but neither can you prove that they exist, nor can atheists prove that they don't.
This again is irrelevant to my argument.
You can prove the earth isn't flat. There is no further argument. It simply isn't.
We can prove that people have issues with specific things, including metaplot and high level characters affecting a game in a negative manner. We can also prove the converse as well.
The difference is, where I understand both views, despite being firmly in one side I don't try to proclaim that your view is false and similar. Yet IMO, the evidence that 4E changed things dramatically (reducing metaplot, killing the chosen pretty specifically in many ways) shows that this was a "problem" and that it needed to be solved. 4E has in fact solved the issue for me and as many others express for them as well.
It has also created entirely new and different problems (or issues) for entirely different people. Just because I like the 4E realms doesn't mean I'm going to go around pretending your views are false: yet this is what Lord Karsus (and others) argue.
You can't, however, objectively look at the scorsese movies and claim that they're better than the Indiana Jones trilogy because they are sophisticated milieu studies and the Indy movies are "just" popcorn entertainment. Objectivity is not possible here.
Quote where I argued for it being "better" anywhere. The 4E realms, I've repeatedly stated are better for me and for my particular playstyle. I acknowledge it poses great issues for people with a different playstyle.
So where have I ever claimed it being superior as a general fiat?
If nobody tried to claim that "objectively the Ferrari / truck is better because..." we'd all be fine.
That's great, because I never did that anywhere.
What I argued was that is something going to be a problem for certain people? Yes. Will it be for others? No. Does it make it not a problem overall if it doesn't occur as an issue for others? No it doesn't.
I'll quote the important part of my own argument:
I can acknowledge that having high level superhero like NPCs is a major problem for many people (and my personal experience proves that to myself anyway). I can acknowledge that the opposite is also a problem with the 4E realms for people who used those characters (And I could see how someone could use Mystra/Chosen etc to add to a game and not detract from it).
Where in that did I say one was unequivocally or objectively better than the other?
I don't think that's a good analogy, because you can't say that some pilots even liked this fault because it made flying much easier and entertaining for them, thus becoming a strength of the plane
I don't think having the potential to completely destroy all your hydraulics makes it easier to fly a plane :p
Actually, the point of the analogy is to demonstrate the flaw in LKs argument. Just because something doesn't cause an issue for everyone and doesn't make every plane crash doesn't mean that it isn't actually a problem.
What you're talking about is a provable fault - one that will have a negative result.
Which is correct as well, that is the flaw in my analogy and I do realise that. I am merely using an extreme example to show that a fault may not cause issue for a large period of time (or many individual examples) yet still be a fault.
If we need more analogies, why not use those which pertain to individual taste?
The taste is fantasy DnD, which FR can appeal to outside of people who like a large amount of metaplot and similar. The issue is when the metaplot and NPCs of the setting override a game, which does not wish to use that particular metaplot and characters. This creates a problem with the setting, because as LK does point out, it does try to be both at once. As in it tries to be extremely detailed, with an overarching metaplot and having a lot of detailed good aligned NPCs - while pretending that the DM can do anything with that world.
Now I can see the problem there right away like a lighthouse in the dark and my experience backs that up. Like with the planes, you, LK and others may not have had it. You can scream it's a "false perception" until the cows come home. IMO, the "schizophrenic" nature of the setting with a detailed metaplot, the NPCs as they were and such does not mesh with every DM who wants to run a game with a disregard to that metaplot/NPCs. Sooner or later, if you take enough of a sample that is going to cause a problem somewhere down the line. The large and frequent number of complaints over the years on this establishes it was a real issue. That the designers changed it in such a specific way also indicates this was thought to be an issue that needed solving.
Now to continue with your analogies, IMO you've missed the mark entirely. The more correct analogy that resembles my argument most strongly, is that a group (or maybe an individual) turns up to listen to Jazz and the metal band turns up to play instead (the disruptive player, or a DM not following canon/not allowing a player to find X good aligned NPC; or just a DM who enforces said characters on his player for whatever reason, etc).
Alternatively, for the 4E realms someone goes to listen to Jazz and the only guy there is a fellow with just a triangle and most of the band were garrotted out back. Plus you need to write the music for him too.
We won't get anywhere conflating the imaginary world itself with how it was published and marketed, or confusing the Realms with things that were inflicted on it. We can hardly talk about things being inherent or not without distinguishing what's inherent from what's contingent!
Also, I'll requote my response to the part of the argument you quoted from LK (...)
But that's the whole point here: You're claiming to be objective by stating the problems are objective because some people have them. But isn't claiming they're subjective (because such a claim admits that we cannot be objective anyway) actually more objective? ;)
It is quite reasonable based on what I have read (and objectively) that the FRCG isn't as detailed as previous supplements. We can even prove this if we're bored enough with the wordcount and amount of information in 4E compared to 3E. Heck, that's not even an issue at all, because 3E has years of books and 4E has a few dragon articles and 2 books total. So yes, it is objectively and provably a problem...
... for people who depend on as much lore as possible. I'm beginning to think we're arguing about semantics here.
Just like it is objectively and provably a problem that many high level NPCs and metaplot can have negative impact on someones game from the huge amount of source material and similar in the 3E realms.
Indeed, they can. That doesn't mean they will - and that's what I meant with "subjective problems".
That's basically what I already argued when you distill it out into this statement.
I know, but where does this insight take us? Now everything under the sun is a problem because under specific circumstances it can be a problem for specific people. Okay. And now? (And by the way, me saying there wasn't enough lore - that was a strawman. I don't care either way, I just work with what I've got and change what doesn't work for me.)
Where, in any part of my post anywhere, did I argue anyones taste being superior?
I admit, I got a little carried away there, trying to make a point before we actually reached that point. You see, what I'm driving at is that people who like to make the setting their own and fill in the gaps are not the part of the customer base the Old Realms were aimed at. That's why I've always wondered why people the Old Realms wasn't intended for came here to complain that the setting was too detailed for their tastes. I didn't belong to the intended customer base either. (Or more precisely I belonged less and less to it the more material TSR published.) I didn't complain and nag TSR (or later WotC) to change the setting so it would fit my needs better, claiming the setting was objectively broken just because it didn't work for me. I just worked with what I had. My taste, as far as the question what a setting has to be like is concerned, is considerably different from the taste of those the setting was aimed at. Saying that the setting was faulty because it did not work for me without me making drastic changes is simply nonsense - it wasn't supposed to work for me, so it was just fine the way it was. That's what niches are about: appealing to some, not to all.
You can prove the earth isn't flat. There is no further argument. It simply isn't.
It wasn't a good example in the first place. Neither is your dysfunctional plane.
The difference is, where I understand both views, despite being firmly in one side I don't try to proclaim that your view is false and similar.
The difference between you and whom? Nobody's saying, "The Old Realms were objectively better, and that's that!", at least to my knowledge. I understand both views, too (no surprise here, as I belong to neither camp). I just disagree with the notion that something that can be a problem for people it isn't even intended for is in itself faulty and has to be "repaired". I mean, where is the sense in me criticizing Star Trek for this and that, even though I don't even like it? I tried to get into it, found too much I didn't like and too little that appealed to me, so I just don't watch it and leave those who do alone. It doesn't need to be all things to all people so it has at least the theoretical potential to appeal to all people - it's just fine the way it is.
Just because I like the 4E realms doesn't mean I'm going to go around pretending your views are false: yet this is what Lord Karsus (and others) argue.
No, I don't think so. LK isn't saying the 4e Realms are worse than the original Realms and you're wrong for preferring them over the older editions. He's just saying that he disagrees with the notion that the setting was objectively broken and needed to be repaired because some people didn't like it the way it was. The 4e Realms isn't objectively broken, either. It's just fine the way it is for those who feel they can use it better than its predecessors.
Quote where I argued for it being "better" anywhere.
Nowhere, and I didn't say you did. I was just trying to explain why there's no objectivity when it comes to taste. Objectivity, however, is a prerequisite for your argument.
The 4E realms, I've repeatedly stated are better for me and for my particular playstyle. I acknowledge it poses great issues for people with a different playstyle.
And I guess we can all agree here. 1e / 2e / 3e / 4e and the respective setting all had and have their fans.
That's great, because I never did that anywhere.
It was just a general example.
Actually, the point of the analogy is to demonstrate the flaw in LKs argument. Just because something doesn't cause an issue for everyone and doesn't make every plane crash doesn't mean that it isn't actually a problem.
And the flaw in this analogy - as well as in the flat Earth analogy - is that it can be proven. Matters of taste cannot. Say I like a setting populated by colorful NPCs galore, and say I like a setting that makes sense as far as the balance and distribution of power is concerned. (In other words, enough powerful NPCs to hold the powerful evil NPCs at bay, as opposed to a world in which the PCs are the only powerful characters and you have to wonder what hinders the bad guys from taking over everywhere the PCs are not at any given moment.) According to my taste, you cannot prove that I will sooner or later have a problem with powerful NPCs stealing the PCs' thunder. Neither can you prove that I won't. It all depends on what individuals make up the gaming group and how it and the GM handle the premise. It can be said, however, that the possibility for encountering problems for someone who has the aforementioned preferences is lower than for someone who doesn't like prominent NPCs in the first place. Many, many, many preferences interconnect here and form the actual playing experience, and they're all strictly individual and, as I said, depend solely on personal opinion. Objectivity cannot be achieved here, and provable "if—then" analogies don't apply.
Which is correct as well, that is the flaw in my analogy and I do realise that. I am merely using an extreme example to show that a fault may not cause issue for a large period of time (or many individual examples) yet still be a fault.
Okay, I'd even agree with you here if, say, the FRCS stated that at the average group level of 18 all adventuring groups will be approached by the Harpers and have to consent to be monitored by and work for them, and that the GM is not free to ignore or change this because the setting supposedly wouldn't work any other way. That would indeed constitute an (extremely abstract) objective problem ;)
See, we don't even disagree all that much. I think we're really just arguing about semantics.
The taste is fantasy DnD, which FR can appeal to outside of people who like a large amount of metaplot and similar. The issue is when the metaplot and NPCs of the setting override a game, which does not wish to use that particular metaplot and characters. This creates a problem with the setting, because as LK does point out, it does try to be both at once. As in it tries to be extremely detailed, with an overarching metaplot and having a lot of detailed good aligned NPCs - while pretending that the DM can do anything with that world.
And he can. Okay, I'll admit not every GM is up to this task - there may be pressure from the group to do it "the right way", the GM may be inexperienced, maybe the contrast between detail and his being used to have free rein is too big, maybe there's a novel fan in the group who knows much more about the canon Realms than the GM, or, or, or. However, the inversion of your argument would be that a setting mustn't be detailed because a certain level of detail could make gaming difficult for some.
Honestly, before 4e someone who pondered if he should get into the FR was well aware of the vast selection of material that existed. If that discouraged him from buying the OGB or the FRCS, well, then it wasn't for him in the first place. But if he bought it and then complained that there was too much lore, well, I don't know what to say... That's like me going into a gay bar and then loudly complaining that there are no girls around to pick up ;)
IMO, the "schizophrenic" nature of the setting with a detailed metaplot, the NPCs as they were and such does not mesh with every DM who wants to run a game with a disregard to that metaplot/NPCs.
You're perfectly right. And these GMs have a vast plethora of settings which are less detailed to choose from. GMs who love an extensive amount of lore to sink their teeth into, however, have very, very few alternatives. If you had your way, they mustn't have any, because there are GMs out there who don't like detailed settings after all :P
I don't criticize HârnMaster for not being flashy enough, I don't criticize Talislanta for having no elves, I don't criticize Cyberpunk for not being Shadowrun - I just don't play in them because they're not for me anyway *shrug* If some aspect of one of these exemplary settings appeals so much to me that I try to play in it in spite of what I don't like about it, I have no right to tell those who like it in its entirety that it should be changed so I have less problems with it, have I?
So the problem isn't the nature of the setting - it has to be somehow, hasn't it, and there will always be someone who dislikes it -, but the popularity. Would we really be arguing if the FR wasn't such a widely-known setting, if not one of the most famous fantasy settings since the whole thing began? Popularity draws attention, after all, and can catch the interest of those it isn't even aimed at.
Now to continue with your analogies, IMO you've missed the mark entirely. The more correct analogy that resembles my argument most strongly, is that a group (or maybe an individual) turns up to listen to Jazz and the metal band turns up to play instead (the disruptive player, or a DM not following canon/not allowing a player to find X good aligned NPC; or just a DM who enforces said characters on his player for whatever reason, etc).
And if you had a Call of Cthulhu group, and I'd just give a damn about the whole investigation and go into the adventure all guns blazing, it would be the system's fault because it doesn't cater to the gung-ho approach? It wouldn't be a player problem?
DB
Should that really read "wanna-be"? Seems a bit mean for you...
Ack!
I did not mean 'Wanna-be DMs", I meant 'FR-Wanna-be' DMs, which is different.
I didn't intend to be insulting - I just meant "people who wanted to run FR but couldn't, for whatever reason". I wasn't trying to reflect on their DMing skills under any other setting.
Sorry of anyone took it that way. :embarrass
You see, what I'm driving at is that people who like to make the setting their own and fill in the gaps are not the part of the customer base the Old Realms were aimed at.
That’s entirely, factually and unequivocally incorrect.
Realms products produced by TSR for D&D and AD&D, and by WotC for AD&D and (3rd Edition) D&D were not marketed to or solely for Dungeon Masters who wanted everything spelled out for them.
Before TSR’s acquisition by WotC, the Realms were the setting that got all of D&D shoehorned into it. “If it’s in D&D, it’s in the Realms” was the motto back then. This is why the Realms were never, ever a niche product. It was the king of the mountain.
The width and breadth of the Realms (bloated, if you ask me) appealed to DMs of all types and TSR knew it. That is in part why they published so much product --and thus part of why TSR died as a company.
World building was one thing, but building on the Realms another. The fun of the Realms has always been taking its various pieces and building from them. Always.
What’s more, setting products -even highly detailed ones- simply cannot tell a DM everything he or she needs to know. Whole campaigns have to be made from the Realms. There were plenty of products to help DMs along the way (the Undermountain boxed sets were great for this), but every product required the DM to build from it.
FR appealed to people who liked boatloads of lore - it was it's main selling-point.
Very few people "who couldn't be bothered" ran FR. They may have wanted to, but the lore was keeping them from doing so (or rather, their own unwillingness to devout ½ their life to learning it).
Simply put, the kinds of people who were attracted to gobs and gobs or setting-lore loved FR, and people who were put-off by it did not.
It really is that cut-and-dry, so I don't even understand how you can sit there and deny the truth in his statement.
There are people like you, who liked the old Realms and like the new as well (perhaps even moreso, for the 'freedom' it provides), but to say that YOU are in the norm is a fallicy.
Most people either went from like to dislike, or dislike to like, but very few, IMHO, continued liking it the same throughout.
You are an exception, NOT the rule.
It really is that cut-and-dry, so I don't even understand how you can sit there and deny the truth in his statement.
That's because I lived it. 100%
Started with the Realms in the 80's. Graduated from school and kept on gaming.
The DMs I gamed with during the 80s and 90s were none of them setting fanatics or lore freaks. They all liked D&D, enjoyed running reasonably detailed games, some (but not all of them) read the novels and they all enjoyed playing in the Realms.
The Realms were just the most popular setting. Sure we played in Dragonlance, Dark Sun and Ravenloft, but we always came back to the Realms because it appealed to us and because it let them flex their creative muscles the most.
When I started moving around the country, I saw the same was true whether I ran Realms games or the new friends I made ran them.
Most DMs simply don’t stop creating. Before 3E (and before I finally settled down), I found that it didn’t matter how much detail a DM started with. If they started at zero, they would build from there. If they started at 100, they would still build from there.
All the setting information did was encourage DMs to create more.
That has always been the true value of Realmslore.
So no, DB is off the mark. I realize his was one statement in a much larger grouping of ideas, but I felt it necessary to shoot it down because it simply isn’t true to claim that people who like to make the setting their own and fill in the gaps are not the part of the customer base the Old Realms were aimed at.
My question is trying to distinguish that from whether anyone here thinks those ideas match how the Realms actually works. It's not that one point trumps the other, it's just the one I'm more interested in, and the one I'm trying to clarify right now. Based on the rest of your post, your answer to that is no.
And that is the impression I have been getting, myself. Everything I've read here so far suggests that problems mentioned in this thread (and others) came from players/DMs rather then the Realms setting as laid in the sourcebooks (and I'm talking about common, easy to find sourcebooks such as the FRCS).
And that is the impression I have been getting, myself. Everything I've read here so far suggests that problems mentioned in this thread (and others) came from players/DMs rather then the Realms setting as laid in the sourcebooks (and I'm talking about common, easy to find sourcebooks such as the FRCS).
See that is almost it... The problme is not the FRCS... but again let me give you two sceneros...
game 1 Forgotten Realms game
game 2 Ebberon game
Both have the Same DM, he owns the PHB, DMG, and MM...and the core campaign setting book. He doesn't read D&D novels, or play D&D video games...
Both games have the same players A,B,C,&D... Player A is a huge reader...he has read every D&D book, Realms, Ebberon, Spelljamemer, Darksun, even the generic 3.5 novels... Player B and C don't read most of them, but both play vedio games and havve played games set in both ebberon and realms...Player D has a little bit of realms lore, but not much more then the DM, however owns ever ebberon book....
If the DM going by JUST the core book and generic D&D information plus what little he has picked up from messege boards, and talking to the PCs in general...
odds of the DM getting all of the details correct in every way shape and form 0%...never going to happen in any setting...nobody is perfect...
odds of the DM getting something wrong that will make atleast one of those players upset about a favrotie place/character/god...well it goes up much higher in the realms then anywhere else...
so no the problme is not the FrCS...the problme is if Player A has alot more in his mind of the realms then the DM...
Now how many supplments do I need to buy to give me all the info the player gets from the novels...
OK, now what if I ONLY have 1 or 2...
If I want to run a homebrew...I do. IF my player expect the realms...they expect the realms THEY KNOW...not one made up on the fly...
Earlier I talked about an idea for thay to invade...I was told Simbol was told she could never again intervine...How do you guys know that? Where was that info?
I also talked about Mystra (A LN god of magic) not careing about said invasion becuse it still used magic...and I was told that was wrong becuse why would sshe not care...it was wrong to the PC...well I only had a small bit of info to go on, the PCs had years of novels...see the problme...
-At least be original.
-That said, like Mystra, I do not enjoy Shar as much as I once did because of her proliferation across the setting in the recent years, and the relative importance placed upon her, as opposed to others.
I cannot agree anymore. I have been in places, both PnP and multiplayer settings, where it seemed every villain out there was a Sharran. Mind, players are exceptions and DMs have a creative license, but still. Everyone seems to want to make Shar a villain a lot of campaign settings when there is just as much, if not more, potential with other villains.
Regards,
AryaNightingale
Ed's original conception of Shar and her clergy doesn't vibe well with the current spotlight they are getting. This is not a bad thing. Putting a megalomanic society of shady magic users that worship a dark entity of entropy in the middle of the more stable adventuring areas of the realms is evocative enough IMO that DM's can run with it and run really fantastic campaigns with. The Shade enclaves still have the mobility to be anywhere within that area making it a customizable threat. Shars darkness and secrecy can be maintained if the DM wants it so.
Regards,
AryaNightingale
So no, DB is off the mark. I realize his was one statement in a much larger grouping of ideas, but I felt it necessary to shoot it down because it simply isn’t true to claim that people who like to make the setting their own and fill in the gaps are not the part of the customer base the Old Realms were aimed at.
Okay, I understand what you were saying a little better now - thanks for responding.
I think we are talking about two different sides of the same coin, though. IMO, the setting appealed to 'lore junkies' much more then other settings did (which is how I took D_B's statement). However, that doesn't necessarily preclude non-lore junkies from loving it as well (which I believe was your point).
The fact is, some people are VERY much into the whole 'simulationist' aspect of FR, which is what attracts those people who get hooked on the lore, weather they play or not.
I see both sides - I was 'just a gamer' for years - when I ran Greyhwak, I pretty much took each adventure as a seperate entity, and didn't even think about how things connected in the 'big picture'. Thats also how I began with FR... but the lore kept growing and growing, and my addictive personality kicked-in and took over, until 'knowing' FR became much more important then 'playing' FR.
So I see both sides - I LOVE the Freedom a lore-lite setting like 4eFR provides... but at the same time I miss the setting I fell in love with.
4eFR isn't for me, at least not anymore, but I won't begrudge those people who finally have their own chance to fall in love.
The only thing I really don't get is that GH was pretty-much 'FR-lite' - that setting was the same type of generic fantasy setting that you could shoe-horn all your own ideas into, but without the tons and TONS of canon to tie your hands.
Why they thought they needed to turn FR into GH, when they already had GH, I'll never know.
Ah, well... no use in crying over spilled Spellplague...
Realms products produced by TSR for D&D and AD&D, and by WotC for AD&D and (3rd Edition) D&D were not marketed to or solely for Dungeon Masters who wanted everything spelled out for them.
Well, maybe "aimed at" wasn't the best wording. However, I thought I'd made it clear that I didn't mean to imply TSR had told everyone else, "Hey, we don't want your money, stop buying our sourcebooks unless you're a lore-enthusiast!" Nor did I mean to imply lore-enthusiasts were the only ones the Realms could possibly appeal to - just that the setting was better suited for them.
There's a vast amount of lore out there for the Realms (up to this point at least), and I guess we can say with some certainty that that's pretty well-known. Maybe someone likes the setting despite the amount of lore; however, said someone knew what he was getting into. By its very nature a lore-heavy setting is better suited for people who like lore-heavy settings than for people who don't. (I don't watch an Indiana Jones movie when I'm in the mood for splatter - yet when I do watch an Indy movie in that mood, I don't complain that it didn't have enough blood - despite having known that beforehand.) Thus, "aimed at" or "intended for".
I think we are talking about two different sides of the same coin, though. IMO, the setting appealed to 'lore junkies' much more then other settings did (which is how I took D_B's statement).
That's how I meant it
DB
Why do people get so upset? I learned a long time ago, if something in a world annoys you just get rid of it. That's what I always did. For a lot of the elements that I didnt like in the FR, the designers did the work for me. I could have done it though, and might have.
Human Nature it is to gripe and complain.
and then some such as myself do it just to vent.
Why do people get so upset? I learned a long time ago, if something in a world annoys you just get rid of it. That's what I always did. For a lot of the elements that I didnt like in the FR, the designers did the work for me. I could have done it though, and might have.
Because you are a being with common sense. ;) Just ignore stuff as much as possible and try and post cool, fun threads that people can use for their games.
I mean, if the LotR movie fans can get along with the book fans, why can't we?
I agree. At this point, we're all admitting that we are Realms fans. Let's embrace that fact and ignore the rest.
I mean, if the LotR movie fans can get along with the book fans, why can't we?
That's only because we won the knife fight out back of the 7/11 one dark night. You must have missed that.
That's only because we won the knife fight out back of the 7/11 one dark night. You must have missed that.
Just because we brought a gun to the knife fight doesn't mean you won by disqualification. ;)
Human Nature it is to gripe and complain.
Isn't that why Al Gore invented the Internet?
Well... that and porn. :D
Isn't that why Al Gore invented the Internet?
Welll... that and porn. :D
Al Gore invented porn?
