# Why *Dont* you like Forgotten Realms?



## Sylrae (Aug 19, 2010)

Not looking for a flamewar, I personally Like Forgotten Realms, Pre Spellplague.

I know lots of people avoid Forgotten Realms stuff though.

The only thing that really bugs me is how spread out the history is. If there were a single history book that was expansive (a more detailed Grand History of the Realms that didn't leave so much out) my problem would be gone.

Some of the reasons I've heard are pretty ridiculous "I don't like Elminster", seems to be the funniest, just because it's so easy to just not use a specific NPC if you don't like them, and because they come up so rarely anyways, unless the DM builds his campaign specifically to make use of them.

For people here.
1. Do you avoid Forgotten Realms products?
2. Do you like either Pre or Post spellplague only, and if so which one and why?
3. What Don't you like about Forgotten Realms?

So far we've got:
1. The setting is too detailed, and something less filled in would be preferable.
2. Want more specific focus for a campaign setting, such as a single country, instead of the kitchen sink entire world approach.
3. A Disliking of High Fantasy.


----------



## jonesy (Aug 19, 2010)

The Known World was my first setting. Blackmoor followed along quite naturally.

When it came time to expand further there were two easy choices based on material available at the time in the local shops and from friends. Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms.

I'd already read all of the Dragonlance novels of the time, so there really was no choice at all. Spelljammer followed from Krynnspace. Ravenloft followed Dragonlance. Ravenloft led to similar stuff like Hommlett and The Temple of Elemental Evil. (and Kult which took me to other directions, like Cthulhu) Then I was in Greyhawk.

Then there was a need for something different, so Dark Sun was next. And then Planescape which I'd previously shunned, but changed my mind completely after trying it.

At that point Forgotten Realms was so far behind me that it never really became an option. I've played there a game or two, but I don't think I've ever owned a single FR book.


----------



## Hella_Tellah (Aug 19, 2010)

I dislike how much of the setting is already mapped out and broadly familiar to most D&D players. That makes it great for computer games and novelizations, but for my style of play, I need to be able to make more stuff up on the fly. In a homebrew world, or any setting that has less material nailed down, I can just plop a sprawling metropolis down anywhere I like. If a player makes a character dedicated to eradicating the undead, I can put a kingdom run by a lich right next door. I can't really do that in the Realms.


----------



## Lhorgrim (Aug 19, 2010)

Honestly, I feel like I fell behind the average knowledge curve for the realms.

I have the 2E boxed set, and back in the day I was pretty excited about it.  As I played in games with other groups in the mid 90's I found that they had spent MUCH more time than I had at learning the history and geopolitical nuances of the realms and the setting NPCs.  Their enthusiasm for all of the details of the setting surpassed mine, and I started longing for a setting that wasn't as developed as Faerun.

I went home brew mostly, and I guess I just filed FR away in my mind as a setting that required more time to learn than I wanted to spend.  I didn't pick up any FR stuff after 2E.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 19, 2010)

It's high fantasy at it's worst, most boring, and most cliche.  Forgotten Realms is not so much a high fantasy campaign setting based on  medieval Europe as it is a high fantasy campaign setting based on high  fantasy campaign settings.


----------



## gamerprinter (Aug 19, 2010)

*I'm not a Kitchen-Sink kind of guy*

Though I've spent some time in both Greyhawk and the Forgotten Realms in pre3x days, I've never really been a kitchen-sink setting kind of guy. Having mostly used home-brew worlds even from 1e on, I like settings that make more sense and doesn't include every D&D trope, which is what a kitchen-sink setting seems to include.

I did like the Birthright setting of Cerelia from 2e days, and I think my European flavored settings reflect Cerelia more so than the Forgotten Realms. Considering that many of my settings use specific cultures as the primary race, like my Kaidan, pseudo Japan setting - I've always been much more limited in racial and regional options that are nothing like Kitchen-Sinks.

I also agree with some of the posts above, and prefer settings that I the DM am more familiar of the setting than the players are, which can be otherwise be unfun from the DMs chair.

Kitchen-sinks are best for the masses, but I like more specific setting designs.

GP


----------



## Sylrae (Aug 19, 2010)

Completely fair Jonesy.

Dragonlance never appealed to me that much, though if someone ran a Dragonlance game I'd give it a shot.

I started with Greyhawk, went to FR, dabbled in Ravenloft a bit, played some Spelljammer when someone else wanted to run a game, Played a tiny bit of planescape, as an expansion to an FR game, and then tried Golarion, and I'm now going back to 3e Forgotten Realms.

My post was mainly because I've met a few people who vehemently avoid FR, including one of my regular players, who won't play anything set in the realms. I can't for the life of me figure out why people want to boycott FR so much, so I figured I'd ask for reasons.

I also find the idea of avoiding all FR while thinking Golarion is awesome kindof confusing.
Golarion fills the same niches as forgotten realms, and doesn't have that much that's drastically different. It has a slightly bigger human presence, has Cheliax: Empire of Devils, and Cayden Cailean, but for the most part, is pretty similar.

But back to FR Specifically, If you actively avoid it or have much that you dislike about it, why?

So far we've got:
1. The setting is too detailed, and something less filled in would be preferable.
2. Want more specific focus for a campaign setting, such as a single country, instead of the kitchen sink entire world approach.
3. A Disliking of High Fantasy.

So. Here are my thoughts and Questions.
1. FR is definitely a setting for someone who wants it filled in. If I want to plop down empires as I design them myself, I don't use FR for that, or I come up with some other way to work them in.
2. This one is a question: Wouldn't the kitchen sink approach let you just pick one of the more focused areas, and concentrate a campaign there? (as in, wouldn't you be able to use it as a collection of settings, and just choose the one you like)?
3. Completely fair. It's definitely High Fantasy. Commoners are often stated as having little magical heirlooms such as a broom that's self cleaning, or a self-heating pot. If you don't like High Fantasy you won't like many places in FR.


----------



## Verdande (Aug 19, 2010)

I'm not a big fan of High Fantasy in general, and of D&D inspired fantasy in particular. In other words, the Forgotten Realms feels like it's D&D extrapolated to an extraordinary degree instead of a simulacrum, if you will, of medieval history viewed through a D&D-tinted lense. Everything in the world is explained perfectly by rules, stats, and dice, and the world suffers for it. 

Then again, I've never delved too deep. I've read a couple books about the place from _years_ back, but I'm sure that's hardly representative.

I guess it just doesn't really do it for me. Mark me down as other- I don't actively avoid it, but there's not a real strong aversion to it. It's above Ravenloft on my scale, but below Dark Sun and Spelljammer, and even below Greyhawk.


----------



## IronWolf (Aug 19, 2010)

Sylrae said:


> 1. Do you avoid Forgotten Realms products?




No.



			
				Sylrae said:
			
		

> 2. Do you like either Pre or Post spellplague only, and if so which one and why?




Pre.  I've been through enough realm shattering events and I have plenty of material that I have no need to deal wit spellplague or post-spellplague.



			
				Sylrae said:
			
		

> 3. What Don't you like about Forgotten Realms?




The number of realm shattering events can be frustrating.  But I can work around those by simply playing in my preferred era.  With so many territories and regions to play in it is easy to stay in the era you want and change the feel of the game.

The level of detail to some areas is a bit over the top.  This is still relatively easily worked around by setting things in lesser known areas, advising players that you may not follow canon exactly or simply focusing the campaign on a more finite area or topic.


----------



## Herschel (Aug 19, 2010)

I liked it through 2E, but 3E didn't leave much "forgotten" and that didn't sit well. Blasting almost everything to smithereens made me like it again.


----------



## ggroy (Aug 19, 2010)

I liked the Forgotten Realms "grey box" from the 1E AD&D days.  I had the first several 1E AD&D FR supplement books such as Waterdeep, Moonshae, etc ...

Back in the day, it was a cool sandbox setting.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Aug 19, 2010)

The history is ok, the map is fine, there ar a lot of interesting areas, but I haeve a few reason I do not run there.

1. Too much Canon. If you want to get fully or mostly up to speed, it is a lot of work.

2. Too many players who have done the above. Players whose characters have an uncanny (and totally implausible) knowledge of every organization, mover and shaker and locale in the whole world. Then they use this knowledge to steal the spotlight, or worse engage in lengthy discourses with their fellow FR-phile while those who are not in the know sit around. This is very annoying as a DM or a fellow player. 

3. No elbow room. Every corner of the world is detailed and there are too many areas with little room to manouver. Yes, there are some wilder areas, but not enough.

In short, for my tastes, it is overly detailed and has been redone too much. But I am happy 4E did little with it, so it is not taking up much of hte developer's valuable time.


----------



## malraux (Aug 19, 2010)

Sylrae said:


> 1. Do you avoid Forgotten Realms products?



In the sense that I don't own any, I guess I do.


> 2. Do you like either Pre or Post spellplague only, and if so which one and why?



I would read and possibly borrow bits and pieces of the 4e CS, only because the 4e book seems to be designed for such cutting.  As a complete setting, I just don't have an interesting story to tell in Faerun.


> 3. What Don't you like about Forgotten Realms?



It might be just a bad first impression, but I personally despised the 3e campaign setting book.  To me, it felt like the least interesting parts of every european history textbook.  I couldn't ever get into the setting.

Beyond that, I never felt that FR offered much beyond the generic DnD setting except for mindcrushing detail.  Possibly, I'd like some of the original grey box material, as I would assume it avoids such problems.  That said, if I'm buying old material like that, I'd rather buy Spelljammer or Planescape or other worlds.


----------



## Nork (Aug 19, 2010)

Sylrae said:


> Some of the reasons I've heard are pretty ridiculous "I don't like Elminster", seems to be the funniest, just because it's so easy to just not use a specific NPC if you don't like them, and because they come up so rarely anyways, unless the DM builds his campaign specifically to make use of them.




I don't think that is a ridiculous reason to dislike the realms.

I've literally had this discussion with people before on why they dislike the realms.  It is what Elminster is the most egregious example of, and represents, that makes people dislike the realms.

Elminster is the grand-daddy of all "DM pet characters", and the realms is lousy with his ilk.  Why should the PCs even bother to get up in the morning?  Somebody else will solve the big problems problems in the realms.  Heck, forget the big problems, if your cat gets stuck in a tree, you can likely find an archmage to get it down for you.

Eberron is lousy with magic as well, but the setting took specific steps to make sure it wasn't lousy with archmages and heroes more qualified than the PCs under every seat cushion.  If some big bad evil guy tries to take over the world, the PCs better stop it, because nobody else really can.

If I was going to try and make something out of the realms, I'd go for an evil campaign.  That way players wouldn't feel like that when confronted with the major plot of the campaign, that their best course of action is to just tell three random people on the street about the plot, so they can be sure that they told at least two Harpers about it, and then go get lunch and take a nap because the problem is handled.

Ok, maybe that is a bit hyperbolic, but the problem with the realms is that it didn't *feel* hyperbolic, and Elminster is the poster child for why it didn't feel hyperbolic.

Edit: Oh yea, and Drizzit too.


----------



## fba827 (Aug 19, 2010)

it's already highly detailed.  I am terrible at remembering detail.
As a player, this means I'd be expected to remember/know something that wasn't necessarily presented over the course of the campaign itself.
As a DM, this means I need to know/memorize way more georgraphy / history/etc.  And if a player remembers it better than I do, well, my credibility as DM gets shot a little right there.

Further, there are already established (and well known) high ranking NPCs.  It becomes hard to have plausible reasons as to why those established NPCs aren't fixing everything themselves with thier near-god like powers.

It should be noted that I have the same opinion of all premade campaign settings.  FR just happens to have more established history and lore than many of the others.


----------



## the Jester (Aug 19, 2010)

Sylrae said:


> 1. Do you avoid Forgotten Realms products?
> 2. Do you like either Pre or Post spellplague only, and if so which one and why?
> 3. What Don't you like about Forgotten Realms?




All of this is personal opinion etc etc disclaimers blah.

1. Almost but not quite entirely; I got the original grey box, the Ruins of Undermountain box, some 2e monster books, the 3e Monsters of Faerun book (many of the monsters within which were not really FR monsters at all), and... hm... I think that's about it.

2. No, although I prefer the "original era" FR over everything that has come since. By which I mean, FR with NO extra supplements past the Grey Box. Other than that, I like FR 4e, as it has done away with much of the stuff that I didn't like about it.

3A. Elminster, to start with- which is one of the things that 4e did to the Realms that I love: get rid of 90% of the "superheroes". There shouldn't be enough ultra-powered high-level good npcs in the campaign world that you can't explain why the bad guys haven't had their asses kicked long ago. But this is the least pressing bit of my dislike for FR. Add to that...

3B. Stupid mechanics, mostly in the 2e era, but bad enough that they forever tainted the flavor of FR for me; or the bastardization of things that were much cooler in their previous incarnation in my opinion. Bladesinger, I'm looking at you as one type of example of this. Spellfire, you're another. Drow as pcs- although originally in Unearthed Arcana- I blame your popularity on FR, and I still will never allow you in my campaign. _Drow are better as monsters than they are as player options._

3C. By far my strongest hate, and again, large eliminated in the current incarnation of the Realms, is reserved for metaplot. Although this applies quite as much to other campaign settings (Dark Sun 2e with your goddamn IMMEDIATE REVISION OF THE BOXED SET RIGHT AFTER IT CAME OUT), FR seems to be a pretty bad offender. I don't want to read crappy game fiction to know what's happening in the campaign, but if all the supplements change stuff around in response the events in novels, rather than reading crap novels I'll stop buying crap-required game products.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Aug 19, 2010)

Sylrae said:


> Some of the reasons I've heard are pretty ridiculous "I don't like Elminster", seems to be the funniest...



Depending on the day of the week, I don't like FR just because so many love it.  Every other day of the week, I don't care one way or the other.


----------



## Ulrick (Aug 19, 2010)

I don't like Forgotten Realms for many of the reasons mentioned. But most of all, well, it kicked Greyhawk to the curb for a few years and took up space in both Dungeon and Dragon magazines. And nearly every single article and rulebook had something to do with how great Elminister is/was. Its like Ed Greenwood got a green light to brag about his favorite D&D character _ad infinitum/ad nauseum._ And most of the rest of FR content is just thrown together without much inspiration or originality.


----------



## samursus (Aug 19, 2010)

I am not a big fan of Forgotten Realms as a campaign setting.  As a novel setting I enjoy it a lot.  I think I just answered the question.


----------



## Semah G Noj (Aug 19, 2010)

Nork said:


> I've literally had this discussion with people before on why they dislike the realms.  It is what Elminster is the most egregious example of, and represents, that makes people dislike the realms.




Just to add to this, there was also the phenomena of statting up these heroes to be more powerful than than were allowed by the rules in every edition they were statted (Elminster's again the most egregious example of this.)  So not only are these characters more powerful than you, but they would always be more powerful than you.  The books have another purpose than just advancing the metaplot, in a lot of cases, they're people's first experience with anything D&D related.  It's not the best introduction when someone wants to emulate their favorite character and find out they can't.


----------



## WayneLigon (Aug 19, 2010)

I don't really DISlike it very much, but I've never been moved to run a game set there for three main reasons, two of which are probably nonsensical 

1. The crazy-quilt geography gives me the eye-twitch. Countries, ethnic groups are spattered over the land with no discernible pattern. Mountain 'ranges' start and stop with wild abandon, ditto for forests, swamps, and pretty much every other geographical feature save for hot, sandy deserts.

2. The 'FR style' city maps give me the eye-twitch. Their buildings never touch each other, etc.

3. The level of detail isn't a turn-off - it's always easier to ignore detail than to try and fill it in later - but the details of the details are sometimes just... eh. So many people have worked on the thing for so many years that it could use for a good, hard steam-cleaning to purge it of silly ideas and tighten up the theme and focus of the entire thing.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 19, 2010)

FR is too new school for me. I was raised on Mystara ("the Known World") and Greyhawk.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Aug 19, 2010)

Because it's hackneyed, cliched, unfocused, unconvincing, and boring too. Oh, and most of the NPCs are _hideously_ awful.

But I had fun, twisting the 3e FRCS to my evil DM purposes.  Goes to show: you can use any setting, if you want to, and make it work.


----------



## Bluenose (Aug 19, 2010)

1. Geography. I just got sick of how stupid it all is. Every desert is a result of a magical catastrophe; presumably because magical catastrophes permanently alter the climate in an area.

2. Economics. Trade in particular, with no apparent understanding of how medieval technology affects the ability to transport goods around. Waterdeep is a prime example.

3. Religion. 'The' Pantheon. Gods grouped by function instead of culture. Both superfluous deities, and deities that are too all-encompassing. 

4. Some of the fans. The ones who insist if you make any criticism, "You don't understand how it works!" Actually, if I don't understand I tend to ask; if I criticise, you might do the courtesy of assuming I know something about the subject in question.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 19, 2010)

Nork said:


> If I was going to try and make something out of the realms, I'd go for an evil campaign.



Totally agree, that's the way to go. The forces of good in FR are very powerful and very annoying.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 19, 2010)

Because it's a Canadian hippy nudie free love commune where the leader is a 26th level naked Gandalf and his hawt elven girlfriend is a 30th level wizard.

NPCs are too high level, powerful and get too much authorial love. Too much wizard love, too much elf love. Conan would not prosper here. The place is too wussy.

It doesn't have the Norse doom-laden vibe (by way of Moorcock and 2000AD) of Warhammer, or Glorantha's mythological literacy or Eberron's pulpitude and noir edge, or Birthright's medievalism.

There's no good ideas, no quality there, just mass detail overload. It's sub-sub-Tolkienesque vanilla fantasy and that's it. It's like Sword of Shannara or those utterly crappy D&D novels.


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Aug 19, 2010)

I started with the 3e FR book, and that's all I have.  Perhaps surprisingly many of the reasons already stated for hating the Realms are things I don't have a problem with:

* I prefer my worlds' geography, cultures, and trade put together so they make no sense logically.  Logic turns off my imagination.

* I like there to be powerful forces for Good.  I automatically believe Evil things will always win, so I need extra weight on the Good side of the scale.

Thing is as much as FR is what I like it's not fantastic enough.  In all its detail it still felt like a normal world full of normal people.  It, like so many other settings, is holding itself back.  That's why I'm ultimately not interested in it.


----------



## Stoat (Aug 19, 2010)

Two things I haven't seen yet.

1.  Fantasy name syndrome.  Everybody's got a name full of X's and Z's and apostrophes.  

2.  Unnecessary "Fantasy".  I remember a Dragon article from the 3.X days that said something like, "The river is full of Zurraunt fish, which are like trout."  Pro tip:  If it's like trout, call it trout.  Don't make up some unpronouncable stupid name.


----------



## Glade Riven (Aug 19, 2010)

- When I first started role-playing, it seemed like every freakin' 5' square was already mapped out.
- Walking into a used book store and seeing the Wall of Forgotten Realms...and all of the books are not game material.
- Dealing with someone who's _read_ all those books on the Wall of Forgotten Realms at the game table is painful. I had a somewhat similar experience when running a Star Wars campaign with someone who had read too much of the Expanded Universe. It drains the fun out of it and causes huge metagaming issues.
- That emo bastard Drizt and his fanclub
- The DM having to hot-fix why the super-NPCs aren't available to fix all your problems

Beyond that, I just don't find it a very compelling campaign setting. It's dull. Boring. Cliche. I've read a few books off the Wall of FR, and while mildly entertained it's mediocre fantasy pretending it's high fantasy.


----------



## Aegeri (Aug 19, 2010)

I like Forgotten Realms as a "kitchen sink" setting, but numerous things about it even after the spellplague bother me no end.

1) I still hate the NPCs. Although they have been depowered, generally removed and such from the setting they still have huge amounts of plot armor. I'm also worried about novel canon adding back into the setting things I absolutely hated that were removed by the spellplague. Like resurrecting Mystra or repowering said NPCs.

2) I don't like that the gods in FR are a bunch of incompetent nincompoops and morons. Worse they get featured in novels prominently.

3) While the obsessive detail level has gone down a lot, it hasn't focused detail on things that are important. Like major cities having maps and other useful _game_ aids. Older edition maps of BG would be useful, if the place wasn't just completely gigantic now and so would look majorly different.

4) The map for the FRCG is by far the worst of the maps for the campaign settings in 4E.

There are other reasons as well, but those are the main ones for me. Also, I find that I just prefer PoL now for my "Kitchen sink" setting. I can copiously steal good ideas from FR to my hearts content as well, like different gods and similar. It's got to the point now that I view it as a setting for stealing things from, like the upcoming Neverwinter setting and not for actually playing in.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 19, 2010)

Kitchen-sink fantasy turned up to 11. Way too much lore. Ridiculous parade of world-altering catastrophes (not as bad as Dragonlance, but still). Too many powerful good-aligned NPCs. A touch of squick any time I think about Elminster's sex life and its likely relation to Ed Greenwood's personal fantasies.

And finally, no reason to _like_ the place. It's a lot of bland, tired pastiches of various fantasy worlds, jammed together. If I'm going to run a game in a pastiche world, I might as well make my own and choose the source material that most appeals to me--I can rip off Tolkien or Robert E. Howard just as well as the next guy.


----------



## Barastrondo (Aug 19, 2010)

When I was in college, Forgotten Realms really inspired me to build my own world. In high school I just ran out of modules, no continuity, just something to do on special occasions. But the FR hardback that came out inspired me to build a world and a campaign, and the way they zoomed in on specific areas taught me that the big advantage of "kitchen sink fantasy" is that you can do highly thematic and singular campaigns and set them all in the same world. 

It would be hypocritical of me to say I don't like the Forgotten Realms. I don't follow it or use it, but that's because it basically inspired me to pretty much do my own thing, only attuned to my own personal preferences. Published settings are still good to steal inspiration from, but homebrew worlds are where I like to play when the name of the game is fantasy.


----------



## Jor-El (Aug 19, 2010)

I can echo what a lot of people have already said. 

1. I like the original gray boxed set, and many of the supplements that followed it. 

2. Eventually however, it got waaaay too detailed. I didn't feel comforatable running a game there for fear of treading on continuity, or worrying about retcons down the road. Too much detail is not a good thing. 

3. Didn't like the changes made for the Time of Troubles. 

4. Don't like the over-powered NPC's and the HIGH FANTASY flavor of 2E on. Every small town shouldn't have a 20th level Archmage in residence, or Farmers with magical plows. 

5. Definately don't like the post-Spellplague Realms. I hate when a setting gets re-concepted like that. I hated what they did with Krynn after Dragons of Summer Flame, I hate when they re-boot or re-start a Comic Book Universe, and I hate when an established line of novels or movies do it. I want my continuity dang it! 

But I really dig the original Realms. I'd run a game from the Gray Box any day.


----------



## Celebrim (Aug 19, 2010)

I hate to be this harsh given that Ed is probably a great DM, but since I can't lie either...

1) Very large portions of the setting appear to have the simple schtick of being the simplified analog of some real world location, mythology or culture.  But even that doesn't really capture the problem, because this isn't HARN World or Birthright with complex takes on real world cultures.  It's barely even the 'Known World' with its clear pastiches.  As someone else put it so well, "It's high fantasy at it's worst, most boring, and most cliche. Forgotten Realms is not so much a high fantasy campaign setting based on medieval Europe as it is a high fantasy campaign setting based on high fantasy campaign settings."
2) The world doesn't appear to have been the product of any deep world building.  It looks like a bottom up world.  The geography and climate is haphazard.  As such, it's really no more sophisticated or interesting than an average world building DM's world and in many cases much less so.  The only difference is its published and therefore has had more time spent providing minor (and usually irrelevant) details.
3) It's got an incredibly dumb pantheon of dieties and it seems utterly unreasonable that anyone would be motivated to worship the pack of bland shallow and uninteresting beings out of genuine piety.  I mean, boiled down to its core dieties you have a 'God of Paladins', a 'God of Rangers', a 'God of Magic-Users', a 'God of Barbarians', a 'God of Thieves', a 'God of Fighters', a generic catch all 'God of Adventurers', and even a 'God of Clerics' (who appropriately has uber-cleric followers in 3e).   Then you have the snearing curled mustache evil versions of the above.   It's a pantheon strongly tied to the D&D meta-game, and honestly I can't think of a single gaming pantheon that is less interesting.  Even the Order of the Stick has a more interesting cosmology.
4)  I've never seen any setting more grostesquely inflicted with 'DM PC's'.  Eleminster is just the most famous example of the general trend of 'these NPC's will always be cooler than you are' which permeates the entire setting, but there are many other ones equally as bad.  This impression is only strengthened by the innumerable second edition supplements and rule books designed to enforce that core truth.
5) What is true for its pantheon and the 'DM PC's' is true to one extent or the other about everything in the setting.  While FR did force me to question the long held assumption that 99% of the world realistically had to be either 0th or 1st level, even after holding that idea up to a candle it still could not justify every innkeeper being a retired 10th level fighter and every village having at least one NPC of 9th to 14th level.  FR suffers from tremendous level inflation, and in general FR NPC's of every sort are about twice the level of NPC's found in every prior setting.  Taking the numbers and dividing by two helps alot, and is pretty much essential for any NPC inflicted with 'coolness'.  FR didn't create the general trend of number inflation that D&D has suffered from for 40 years now, but it certainly helped push the idea that bigger numbers are inherently cooler and better than smaller ones - even ironicly in FR's case that a high level PC is relatively weaker to the rest of the setting than in any other published setting.  I mean there are usually several 20th level characters in every town with more than 20,000 inhabitants.  The splat books are filled with 15th-20th level fighters that are 7 feet tall, wield two swords, and have roughly 18/00 strength (or higher!).  It's utterly ridiculous.
6) The quality of material published for the FR setting varies from the juvenile to the amateurish.  Just how many truly interesting, gamable, or mature modules have been published for FR?  The DL modules for all there flaws are less railroady, more sophisticated, and have a better setting than any thing published for FR.  Any good campaign that occurs in the FR does so by accident and says more about the talents of the DM (and his willingness to throw out the cannon) than it does of the deep measure of thought (or lack of it) that went into the FR.
7) I'm going to disagree with those that say its 'too detailed'.  FR lavishes most of its details on the major cities.  The large amount of detail associated with the major cities is IMO largely welcome especially if you are going to do a campaign with alot of travel.   But, in between the 'points of light' in the places where you might actually you know be adventuring, its a wasteland with hardly more detail than 'some monsters of this type are found here'.  Most of the FR map is absolutely empty, and this was demonstrated to me when we actually tried to campaign in the FR.  While the city maps are very nice on one level, they constitute a very small portion of what you'd like to have for a 'ready made setting'.  Given the huge amount of information published on the FR, you'd think that it would be quite easy to run a campaign in the FR without much of the basic preperation of mapping and so forth.  But in fact, you've got tons of information on the interior of inns, on the politics of far flung cities, but almost no information about what adventures actually do when they aren't kicking down a brew or hobnobbing with NPC's far more powerful than they will likely ever be and virtually nothing like a usuable module.  Compare with virtually every other setting where the attention, time and energy of world building is primarily lavished on places for the players to adventure.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Aug 19, 2010)

DMPCs are pretty much never good.

Ones that outright break the rules are worse.


----------



## Festivus (Aug 19, 2010)

I was playing in the Living Forgotten Realms setting until they changed how that all worked and drove me away.  I await January to see how the "reboot" looks for that.  It was what was available at the time.  Now there are more options open to me.

Regarding Spellplague... it's just yet another world shattering event... yawn.  Oh look, another one is coming too, oh no, it's the Abyssal Plague... yawn.

The big dislikes for me are: 

1. The players are small fish in a pond with some very big "hero" fish in it already was one of the things I didn't like about the setting.
2. There are novels about the setting, giving people preconceived opinions about things in the setting, leaving little wiggle room.


----------



## Festivus (Aug 19, 2010)

(double post --- wierd)


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Aug 19, 2010)

Sylrae said:


> Some of the reasons I've heard are pretty ridiculous "I don't like Elminster", seems to be the funniest, just because it's so easy to just not use a specific NPC if you don't like them, and because they come up so rarely anyways, unless the DM builds his campaign specifically to make use of them.




Insulting other peoples' opinions isn't a good way to generate discussion.

Sure, you can just write out Elminster, but then you're making a big change to the Realms.



> For people here.
> 1. Do you avoid Forgotten Realms products?




Some of the novels are good. I avoid any with Chosen of Mystra in them.



> 2. Do you like either Pre or Post spellplague only, and if so which one and why?




Both have their charms.



> 3. What Don't you like about Forgotten Realms?




Too many high-powered magical good-aligned NPCs with non-specified but ridiculous powers. Not just magical ones either. They're all incredibly intelligent and charismatic (not surprising, the authors have months to write a novel), have vast resources that would make S.H.I.E.L.D. jealous and run their own spy networks. They all know ancient lore that no one else would know. The good guys are so "overpowered" (not (just) in combat terms*) the bad guys never stand a chance. Sure they can make mistakes, but never the same kind the PCs make.

And not only is the god of magic a main character in the old setting, but she's *good-aligned!* (Dragonlance, at least, did this right by having three of them, one of each alignment.)

Sometimes the CoM novels seems like bad James Bond parody novels, but only worse; Bond can't teleport, and he still has limitations. And if something bad happens to him, Elminster's Evasion or a goddess will not literally save his life.

So in short, novels featuring important good-aligned characters damaged the setting. You can throw them out, but then it's not really the Realms.

*In fact, in 3e the Chosen of Mystra were wimps, ruleswise, compared to their 2e counterparts, but that's in part because people tried to convert them as "closely" as possible. (They all have insanely high stats that they "rolled" in 2e, not counting the Constitution boost, but no stat-boosting items, and their item selections usually suck, too.) But their rules combat power isn't the real issue.

I should point out I'm only complaining about a few subseries or authors, it's just too bad the Elminster and Friends subseries is one of the most important. (Also, I will complain endlessly about Elaine Cunningham. Drow shouldn't get to slap Lolth in the face and get away with it.) The six-part drow "Dissolution" series was not only pretty well-written, but the drow *were actually evil!* (Well, most of them. None were good.) And I really liked the Erevis Cale trilogy that I read, and several others too.


----------



## Dragonbait (Aug 19, 2010)

I know this thread was for people who do not like the Realms, but I think that since I have a love/hate relationship with it I could post.

1. Do you avoid Forgotten Realms products?
No. The setting has become such generic D&D that I have no problems removing the Forgotten Realmsian references and using it elsewhere without it losing any flavor or purpose as I do with the inferred setting of the core 3E or 4E creatures (Oerth and PoL respectively). 

2. Do you like either Pre or Post spellplague only, and if so which one and why?
I flip-flop. I like the idea of having a setting that I can pick up and just tell people "make characters" and I'll see cultures referenced without me having to push a player to do so. Pre Spellplauge is this to my groups. Post Spellplague has some nice differences and changes in the setting that I like. It amps up the weirdness levels that exist in most modern fantasy settings. And it's just different enough that I feel I can add my own touches and the setting police wont come and take me away. 

3. What Don't you like about Forgotten Realms?
Been there Done that. A lot of the older material had the players following in the footsteps of previous characters. I've always been a fan of the PCs exploring someplace completely new and untouched. That is not the norm for the Realms unless I go to the underdark of to the jungles of Chult. It also created the illusion that people were much more worldly than they really were supposed to be. Would a mercenary leaving Cormyr for the first time know much about Amn, let alone the politics of Halruaa? The map shows a HUGE area, but does that mean PCs should know what lies beyond every mountain? 

People complain that cultures in the Realms resemble real-world cultures. I don't mind that, but I would like to see some more differences. I want to know how a soldier from Tethyr, Cormyr, Amn, and the like differ. How do the people dress in the different areas? I've never seen a book that covers that. Even the art shows much of the same, aside from the rare fantasy-Middle Eastern or fantasy-Mongolian image. It seems everyone wears the same chainmail, carry the same longswords and the same shields.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Aug 19, 2010)

Why I dislike FR:

Elminster
and
Drizz't

But, once you get those two Mary Sues out of the way, it's not that bad of a setting. Although as others have pointed out, it feels rather bland and generic these days.

I'm not saying that every setting needs to be some crazy over-the-top wahoo weirdland, but FR just doesn't feel as fresh as it could. (Although 4e / the Spellplague did help mix things up a little bit.)

I do play Living Forgotten Realms, and I own both of the 4e FR books, so I clearly don't dislike the setting enough to avoid it altogether. I just don't think it's the be-all end-all.


----------



## Swedish Chef (Aug 19, 2010)

I'm probably going to get dumped on for this, but here goes.

I like the Realms.

Yup, I said it. I like the Realms.

My group has played in the Realms for the last 20 years. I've got the majority of books/supplements/boxed sets that have been published with the exception of the 4ed stuff, mainly because we don't play 4ed. That, and I really don't like the magical floaty bits of land idea (and yes, I really disliked that in Avatar).

For me, the Realms is still a great big sandbox. Elminister? Doesn't exist in my version of the Realms. Same with Blackstaff, Alustriel, etc, etc, etc. Doesn't change a damned thing as far as my group is concerned.

Novels? They were fun to read when I was a teenager. After that, I ignored them, as many of them were written by hacks (in my opinion). As for them being canon - not in my Realms. Of course, no one in the group reads them either, so it doesn't matter.

As for the whole history and mish mash of cultures? I find some of the splat books to be fun to read. However, my group likes playing in the North or the Dalelands, so that's what we stick to. The rest of the cultures are there, but since the campaigns never wander very far, it has never been an issue. 

For our group, I am the one who mainly DMs, and I'm the one who buys the Realms specific splat books. The rest of the group just isn't interested in spending that kind of money, so they don't. And it works out just fine for all of us. They are the big heroes (or dastardly villains) of the area for the duration of the campaign, and that's the way they like it.

And I can still drop anything in pretty much anywhere I like. I want the city of Grayhawk to be there? Guess what, Silverymoon or Secomber or Neverwinter are now using the map for the city of Grayhawk. The group cares not a wit. I want the Temple of Elemental Evil to be hidden in the forest of Cormanthyr? That's where it is.

For me, the main reason I like the Realms is that there is so much available for it. I no longer have the time to build worlds like I did when I was a teenager, so having stuff that I can easily look up and use is great for me. As to how vanilla or over the top the "fantasy" aspect is, again, I control that, and it works for our group. Archmages in every town? Not in my game.


----------



## Primal (Aug 19, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> I hate to be this harsh given that Ed is probably a great DM, but since I can't lie either...
> 
> 1) Very large portions of the setting appear to have the simple schtick of being the simplified analog of some real world location, mythology or culture.  But even that doesn't really capture the problem, because this isn't HARN World or Birthright with complex takes on real world cultures.  It's barely even the 'Known World' with its clear pastiches.  As someone else put it so well, "It's high fantasy at it's worst, most boring, and most cliche. Forgotten Realms is not so much a high fantasy campaign setting based on medieval Europe as it is a high fantasy campaign setting based on high fantasy campaign settings."




I know that this thread is meant for negative opinions of FR, but I think your post (and several others as well) contains some misconceptions about FR. In my opinion, that is. 

First of all, Ed might have created the Realms, but his "Home Realms" is not the same setting TSR printed and expanded upon. As far as I know, Ed's FR does not contain any direct RW analogies. When he sold the rights to TSR, he effectively relished his creative control over the setting. And TSR -- and/or the freelancers who actually designed the gazetteers -- apparently thought it would be cool if FR had its own Greece, Egypt, Inuits, Vikings and whatnot. Based on what I've read on Candlekeep.com, I'd guess Ed's take on Mulhorand or the Great Glacier is dramatically different from the published Realms.



> 2) The world doesn't appear to have been the product of any deep world building.  It looks like a bottom up world.  The geography and climate is haphazard.  As such, it's really no more sophisticated or interesting than an average world building DM's world and in many cases much less so.  The only difference is its published and therefore has had more time spent providing minor (and usually irrelevant) details.




Again, this is largely due to TSR's erratic design decisions; most 1E/2E FR supplements were really bad -- excepting, IMO, the books written by Ed, Eric Boyd and Steven Schend. As someone who loves details and minutiae, I found Volo's Guides or the "Deity Books", for example, to be tresure troves of information. 



> 3) It's got an incredibly dumb pantheon of dieties and it seems utterly unreasonable that anyone would be motivated to worship the pack of bland shallow and uninteresting beings out of genuine piety.  I mean, boiled down to its core dieties you have a 'God of Paladins', a 'God of Rangers', a 'God of Magic-Users', a 'God of Barbarians', a 'God of Thieves', a 'God of Fighters', a generic catch all 'God of Adventurers', and even a 'God of Clerics' (who appropriately has uber-cleric followers in 3e).   Then you have the snearing curled mustache evil versions of the above.   It's a pantheon strongly tied to the D&D meta-game, and honestly I can't think of a single gaming pantheon that is less interesting.  Even the Order of the Stick has a more interesting cosmology.




I haven't heard of a "God of Clerics", "God of Fighters" or a "God of Barbarians" in the FR pantheon -- or their evil counterparts. Besides, the deities you mentioned above (Gods of Strength, Magic/Magic-Users, Thieves, Warriors) are more or less featured in pretty much every D&D setting (and in many other fantasy RPG settings as well), because they're archetypes. Doesn't Greyhawk and Core 3E/4E have its God of War and Strength in Kord? Doesn't Boccob or Ioun represent Knowledge? Bahamut the Paladins? I just don't think your comments are fair, that's all. The original Mystra, for example, was LN -- TSR killed her during ToT and implemented a CG Deity of Magic (Midnight) into FR.



> 4)  I've never seen any setting more grostesquely inflicted with 'DM PC's'.  Eleminster is just the most famous example of the general trend of 'these NPC's will always be cooler than you are' which permeates the entire setting, but there are many other ones equally as bad.  This impression is only strengthened by the innumerable second edition supplements and rule books designed to enforce that core truth.




AFAIK, Elminster is not a DMPC, but a "mentor-like" character whose role TSR wanted to emphasize; IIRC, they told Ed to make him the central figure in FR fiction. As far as powerful NPCs go, it's more or less the norm in fantasy fiction. And in a world filled with powerful evil NPCs and monsters, I'd expect that there are either a large amount of mid-to-high level NPCs to "stave off the Darkness" (if you ask me, the whole 'Points of Light' concept in 4E is a bit silly; I can't fathom why Evil hasn't overrun the world if there are no significant NPCs anywhere). 

I don't see them "stealing" the spotlight from the PCs, however.  I wonder how many players would be happy if you forced their high-level PCs to constantly fight low-level threats (with virtually no XP or treasure). I'm fairly sure that they'd rather fight the likes of Szass Tam or Fzoul Chembryl than goblins or bandits. And I imagine this would be how Elminster, the Seven Sisters, Khelben et al. feel. 

I'll admit that FR has a LOT of powerful wizards; however, most of them are more or less involved in plane-hopping, research or other machinations of their own. Quite a significant portion of them seem more or less insane.



> 5) What is true for its pantheon and the 'DM PC's' is true to one extent or the other about everything in the setting.  While FR did force me to question the long held assumption that 99% of the world realistically had to be either 0th or 1st level, even after holding that idea up to a candle it still could not justify every innkeeper being a retired 10th level fighter and every village having at least one NPC of 9th to 14th level.  FR suffers from tremendous level inflation, and in general FR NPC's of every sort are about twice the level of NPC's found in every prior setting.  Taking the numbers and dividing by two helps alot, and is pretty much essential for any NPC inflicted with 'coolness'.  FR didn't create the general trend of number inflation that D&D has suffered from for 40 years now, but it certainly helped push the idea that bigger numbers are inherently cooler and better than smaller ones - even ironicly in FR's case that a high level PC is relatively weaker to the rest of the setting than in any other published setting.  I mean there are usually several 20th level characters in every town with more than 20,000 inhabitants.  The splat books are filled with 15th-20th level fighters that are 7 feet tall, wield two swords, and have roughly 18/00 strength (or higher!).  It's utterly ridiculous.




This I actually agree with, but I wonder how much some of Ed's earliest campaigns influenced this; namely, it seemed that some of his players were totally okay with robbing merchants and even killing other PCs just to gain more XP and treasure. 

I also experienced the same when I tried running my first games to a group of extrovert, teenaged players, whose first question was: "You mean we can do ANYTHING we want in this game? Like... kill people?". So, yeah, my first games tended to turn into complete hackfests as the PCs ignored any adventure hooks to rape, pillage and conquer small villages. Pretty soon my games, too, featured several 10-15 level retired adventurers even in the smallest backwoods hamlets.  

Still, I don't know why TSR chose to publish those NPCs "as is" from Ed's own campaigns (for example, Cormyr has quite many 0-level merchants with racks of wands and smiths with flying anvils or Helmed Horror guardians and whatnot) .



> 6) The quality of material published for the FR setting varies from the juvenile to the amateurish.  Just how many truly interesting, gamable, or mature modules have been published for FR?  The DL modules for all there flaws are less railroady, more sophisticated, and have a better setting than any thing published for FR.  Any good campaign that occurs in the FR does so by accident and says more about the talents of the DM (and his willingness to throw out the cannon) than it does of the deep measure of thought (or lack of it) that went into the FR.




I'd rank anything written by the esteemed Lorelords mentioned above as quality material. However, you're absolutely correct that too many freelancers were free to do anything they wanted with FR.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Aug 20, 2010)

Forgotten Realms and Dark Sun are my favorite game settings.

However, what I least like about the FR is Drizzt. It just seems to me that Drizzt was created to break the rules and for a power gamer.

And I like Elminster, but he won't exist in my games.  

It just seems to me that whenever Elminster exists people want to flock to him rather than help the townspeople repel a Drow invasion from under their home town.


----------



## Celebrim (Aug 20, 2010)

Primal said:


> I know that this thread is meant for negative opinions of FR, but I think your post (and several others as well) contains some misconceptions about FR. In my opinion, that is.




Yeah, I think that's the size of it.  What you see as misconceptions are I think, just different ways of looking at the same thing.



> First of all, Ed might have created the Realms, but his "Home Realms" is not the same setting TSR printed and expanded upon.




That, and much else of what you wrote, is known to me.  I am aware that Ed can't be blamed for everything that was done with his setting; however, I am also aware that much of what is worst about the FR can be laid directly at his feet.  Namely, modules like Haunted Halls of Eveningstar and the 'Avatar Trilogy', supplements like Seven Sisters and The Code of the Harpers, and the Eliminster novels cannot be blamed on anyone else and in fact are the very things he likes about the setting.  In my opinion these rank as some of the worst products TSR ever published.  So, yes, there is a matter of opinion here in that Ed's taste in a setting is definately not mine (or apparantly yours).

That's not to say that he's not a good or even excellent DM, and I think the Icewind Dale trilogy stands up as an excellent 'story hour' (if not necessarily novels), but I don't think nearly as much of him as a setting or rules smith and honestly I think that his era contributes greatly to the decline of D&D and overall quality of writing at TSR.  I congradulate him on his success, but find it somewhat baffling.   As a fellow DM, I'm sure he would have much to teach, and I wouldn't mind setting at his table, but I don't think I'd ever buy any of his products (again, once bitten...).



> Again, this is largely due to TSR's erratic design decisions; most 1E/2E FR supplements were really bad -- excepting, IMO, the books written by Ed, Eric Boyd and Steven Schend. As someone who loves details and minutiae, I found Volo's Guides or the "Deity Books", for example, to be tresure troves of information.




I like minutiae as much as the next guy, but I can't help but feel that things like the Volo Guides are - like for example most GURPS supplements - books that gamers like to read, rather than books gamers actually use at the game table.



> I haven't heard of a "God of Clerics", "God of Fighters" or a "God of Barbarians" in the FR pantheon -- or their evil counterparts. Besides, the deities you mentioned above (Gods of Strength, Magic/Magic-Users, Thieves, Warriors) are more or less featured in pretty much every D&D setting (and in many other fantasy RPG settings as well), because they're archetypes.




No, they aren't, and no they aren't.  The needs of a real world religion differ dramatically from those of a game religion.  If you look at real world religions, say the familiar Greek Olympians but any will do, you won't find gods of theives, magic, or even (typically) strength as being the most prominent members of the pantheon.  In fact, the personifications or patrons of those things are typically very minor deities or else that role is a minor aspect of the dieties portfolio.  In the real world - and for that matter fantasy worlds - most people aren't theives, fighters, or wizards.  There concerns are for food, crops, seasons, money, sex, family, weather, leisure, the law and its proper establishment, and various trades necessary to the community and the pantheon will primaily feature patronage for those sorts of things.  Central American pantheons often had like a half dozen corn deities.  Real world dieties have complex portfolios.  Hermes is the god of messangers, lawyers, and thieves and is invoked when people want to win a race.  Diana is the goddess of the moon and virgins and hunting.  But even that underestimates the complexity and misses the point, because real world polytheistic deities are generally about oral traditions concerning them and have hallmarks of that kind of conception.  It's that that makes them sufficiently compelling to induce people to believe and worship them.  The FR deities have no such hallmarks.  They look like, read like, and essentially are game aids.

As a religion, the FR deities fall absolutely flat.  They exist only to provide patrons for adventurers.  So you have Mystra the goddess of M-U's, Meilikki the goddess of Rangers, Silvanus the god of Druids, Torm the god of Paladins, Mask the God of Theives, Helm the God of fighters, Oghma the God of Bards and so on and so forth.  And (jokingly) you have Lathlander the God of Clerics.  This is OotS sort of breaking of the fourth wall, and the thing is not only is it not meant to be funny, but OotS is actually more complex and mature in its conceptions despite being about breaking the 4th wall.  

The thing is, you can't blame me for this perception.  This is how the dieties were described in their first introduction and they are largely still described in those terms.  Some complications arose as they were detailed to a greater degree, but there obvious first inspiration is as class patrons.  Anything else about them was added on tangentally to their primary role, rather than figuring out from the primary role what mercenary trades might esteem the deity.  You have to get way out into the fringes of the pantheon to even find dieties that remotely seem to be archetypes and which makes some sense as dieties.  The pantheon is almost entirely backwards.  What makes this particularly bad is that many of the dieties are just directly stolen from the 1st edition Deities and Demigods (Finnish, Celtic, and Greek pantheons particularly) and generally have about as much depth not as the real world deity, but of that books monster entry.



> The original Mystra, for example, was LN -- TSR killed her during ToT and implemented a CG Deity of Magic (Midnight) into FR.




I adventured with a Paladin of the original Mystra (DM ruled that Paladins could chose a patron up to one step removed from LG) for like 4 real life years.  This isn't misconceptions.  This is different perceptions of the same thing.  If you want to see what I like and admire in an invented polytheist pantheon read 'The Book of the Righteous' or in literature Bujold's 'Curse of Chalion'.  Those excellently conceived dieties I can imagine people piously worshiping.   The Greyhawk pantheon(s) are also much better concieved than the FR.



> AFAIK, Elminster is not a DMPC...




His role in modules and Ed's obvious attachment and even self-identification with the wizard argues against that assessment.  Many of the early FR modules are strict railroads where you watch more important characters than you do thier thing while you are essentially unable to alter the outcome.  They feature text walls not merely of descriptions, but of events you are to witness.



> As far as powerful NPCs go, it's more or less the norm in fantasy fiction.




There are two problems there (at least).  First of all, this isn't 'fantasy fiction' we are talking about.  This is gaming material.  Gaming material has different standards than generic literature or novels because its meant to be related to in a different way.  And second of all, the FR model was not the norm in gaming material.  It marked different to see 30th level characters who had divine gifts that separated them from mere mortals being not only the foils of the party that they were meant to overcome (because no one else could) but the actual movers and shakers among the forces of good.  Compare with for example Greyhawk, where most of the big names were in effect actual player characters (or their enemies).  For FR, you could basically say that only of Drizzt.



> I don't see them "stealing" the spotlight from the PCs, however.




Then you didn't actually play much published FR material either.



> This I actually agree with, but I wonder how much some of Ed's earliest campaigns influenced this; namely, it seemed that some of his players were totally okay with robbing merchants and even killing other PCs just to gain more XP and treasure.




I'm aware of what probably was the initial compelling reason behind it.  You act like we DMs haven't all experienced that.  But not all of us felt compelled to adopt an Ultima style model where the shop keepers and gaurds were some of the most powerful monsters in the game.  There are other approaches than "Pretty soon my games, too, featured several 10-15 level retired adventurers even in the smallest backwoods hamlets."


----------



## Celebrim (Aug 20, 2010)

Swedish Chef said:


> I'm probably going to get dumped on for this, but here goes.
> 
> I like the Realms....Elminister? Doesn't exist in my version of the Realms. Same with Blackstaff, Alustriel, etc, etc, etc...As for them being canon - not in my Realms. Of course, no one in the group reads them either, so it doesn't matter...The rest of the cultures are there, but since the campaigns never wander very far, it has never been an issue.... I want the city of Grayhawk to be there? Guess what, Silverymoon or Secomber or Neverwinter are now using the map for the city of Grayhawk...I want the Temple of Elemental Evil to be hidden in the forest of Cormanthyr? That's where it is.   Archmages in every town? Not in my game.[/




I'd probably like _your_ forgotten realms too.   But, you've house ruled the setting to the point that its difficult to call it the Forgotten Realms.

And in my experience, this is what the best FR DM's do - they just dump what they don't like and use what they can.  There are things about the material available for FR that are very useful, even if the the FR as a setting as a whole isn't.  For example, just having all those city maps and names at hand can save you an enormous amount of time as a DM.


----------



## Alzrius (Aug 20, 2010)

Okay, I have to speak up here...



Celebrim said:


> Yeah, I think that's the size of it.  What you see as misconceptions are I think, just different ways of looking at the same thing.




Maybe, but a lot of the following are genuine misconceptions. On your part, I mean.



> _That, and much else of what you wrote, is known to me.  I am aware that Ed can't be blamed for everything that was done with his setting;
> 
> [...]
> 
> That's not to say that he's not a good or even excellent DM, and I think the Icewind Dale trilogy stands up as an excellent 'story hour' (if not necessarily novels),_




Said story hour was written by R. A. Salvatore, not Ed Greenwood. So...yeah, no credit for Ed there.



> _No, they aren't, and no they aren't._




Yes, they are, and yes they are. This one isn't a matter of opinion, it's a question of fact. Greyhawk had archetypal gods long before the Forgotten Realms was published.



> _The needs of a real world religion differ dramatically from those of a game religion.  If you look at real world religions, say the familiar Greek Olympians but any will do, you won't find gods of theives, magic, or even (typically) strength as being the most prominent members of the pantheon.  In fact, the personifications or patrons of those things are typically very minor deities or else that role is a minor aspect of the dieties portfolio.  In the real world - and for that matter fantasy worlds - most people aren't theives, fighters, or wizards.  There concerns are for food, crops, seasons, money, sex, family, weather, leisure, the law and its proper establishment, and various trades necessary to the community and the pantheon will primaily feature patronage for those sorts of things.  Central American pantheons often had like a half dozen corn deities.  Real world dieties have complex portfolios.  Hermes is the god of messangers, lawyers, and thieves and is invoked when people want to win a race.  Diana is the goddess of the moon and virgins and hunting.  But even that underestimates the complexity and misses the point, because real world polytheistic deities are generally about oral traditions concerning them and have hallmarks of that kind of conception.  It's that that makes them sufficiently compelling to induce people to believe and worship them.  The FR deities have no such hallmarks.  They look like, read like, and essentially are game aids._




I have to admit, this is a truly excellent point...or would be, if Primal had been comparing the Forgotten Realms deities to real-world religions and faiths. Except, oh yeah, *he didn't*. He was comparing them to other D&D deities...and in that regard, he's totally correct.



> _As a religion, the FR deities fall absolutely flat. They exist only to provide patrons for adventurers. So you have Mystra the goddess of M-U's, Meilikki the goddess of Rangers, Silvanus the god of Druids, Torm the god of Paladins, Mask the God of Theives, Helm the God of fighters, Oghma the God of Bards and so on and so forth._




Not at all like Boccob the god of M-U's, Ehlonna the god of Rangers, Beory the god of Druids, Heironeous the god of Paladins, Olidammara the God of Thieves, Kord the God of fighters, Trithereon the God of Bards and so on and so forth. 

Yeah, the Realms are so unique in how their deities are so easily reduced to being just "patrons for adventurers" when you toss out everything that's ever been written for them after their summaries in the first boxed set. Forget crap like the "Faiths & Avatars" series - despite their consistent high praise even after all these years - the Realms gods are all duds.



> _And (jokingly) you have Lathlander the God of Clerics._




It's "Lathander" and he's the god of spring, dawn, and birth. It's like calling Pholtus "the God of Clerics."



> _This is OotS sort of breaking of the fourth wall, and the thing is not only is it not meant to be funny, but OotS is actually more complex and mature in its conceptions despite being about breaking the 4th wall. _




Or maybe it's just the fact that you seem to have just enough knowledge of what you're talking about to have no actual idea what you're talking about. Seriously, you've gone entirely off the rails with this line of reasoning. 



> _The thing is, you can't blame me for this perception._




Oh, I think you better check again.



> _I adventured with a Paladin of the original Mystra (DM ruled that Paladins could chose a patron up to one step removed from LG) for like 4 real life years._




You...actually spent four years of your real life going on adventures with an actual paladin...of Mystra...? 

I think you might be having some misconceptions about-



> _This isn't misconceptions._




Er...okay then...





> _The Greyhawk pantheon(s) are also much better concieved than the FR._




See above.



> _Then you didn't actually play much published FR material either._




Man, compared to the adventures you and that paladin of Mystra apparently had, nobody played much of the Realms.


----------



## Pseudonym (Aug 20, 2010)

Alzrius said:


> Man, compared to the adventures you and that paladin of Mystra apparently had, nobody played much of the Realms.




You must spread some Experience Points around before giving it to Alzrius again.

Thanks for conjuring up memories of Tom Hanks in the steam tunnels.


----------



## Uzzy (Aug 20, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> I'd probably like _your_ forgotten realms too.   But, you've house ruled the setting to the point that its difficult to call it the Forgotten Realms.
> 
> And in my experience, this is what the best FR DM's do - they just dump what they don't like and use what they can.  There are things about the material available for FR that are very useful, even if the the FR as a setting as a whole isn't.  For example, just having all those city maps and names at hand can save you an enormous amount of time as a DM.




Exactly. The level of detail is, for me, a lifesaver. I can consult huge amounts of material for inspiration as to what sort of game I want to run. If I need an NPC, there's thousands. If I need a city, there's hundreds. If I need a plot hook, there's dozens. But somehow this doesn't stop me creating my own NPC's, or cities or whatever. I simply do not understand it when people argue that the level of detail stops them creating. Are DM's unable to ignore the detail they don't need and use the detail they want to? 

And sure, there are setting lawyers out there who have read every single product. But again, you're the DM. Remind them of rule zero, and if needed, grab a heavy gaming book and smack em round the head, telling them that it's your world, and that as the DM you have the right to change things. Further, aren't there setting lawyers for anything? Why does that only seem to be a bad mark against the Forgotten Realms?


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 20, 2010)

The many eras of published FR demonstrate the worst sins of design-by-committee, especially one where the committee has significant overrepresentation by the marketing department.

But do I avoid FR products? As FR products nowadays, yes, but not on their value as a standalone product. I have occasionally bought an FR product when it had something worth pulling for my own homebrew . . . that hasn't happened in many years though.

I used to be an FR-fan, like Barastrondo, the Gray Box inspired me to build settings and filled me with ideas. It doesn't fill me with wonder anymore.


----------



## the Jester (Aug 20, 2010)

Alzrius said:


> Not at all like Boccob the god of M-U's, Ehlonna the god of Rangers, Beory the god of Druids, Heironeous the god of Paladins, Olidammara the God of Thieves, Kord the God of fighters, Trithereon the God of Bards and so on and so forth.




Er, that's not how the GH pantheons work at all.

If you were a magic-user, yes, you MIGHT worship Boccob. But you also might worship Wee Jas, Zagyg or another god entirely.  If you're a FR mage, you pretty much worship Mystra. Likewise, a fighter might choose to follow Hextor, Heironeous, Kord, Kelanen or any number of other gods, demipowers or quasi-deities.

FR's deities, imho, were much more one-dimensional (at least in their initial incarnation). Greyhawk's pantheons- because there are several- seem to have a lot more depth to me. But that may well be because of my personal affection for GH vs. my personal antipathy towards FR.


----------



## Swedish Chef (Aug 20, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> I'd probably like _your_ forgotten realms too.   But, you've house ruled the setting to the point that its difficult to call it the Forgotten Realms.




Thank you for the compliment. As to the second sentence, you're partially correct. I've house ruled away the uber NPCs. Doesn't mean the various other elements are gone. I still use the Zhentarim, Red Wizards, Harpers, etc. They're just toned down. I don't consider removing uber NPCs to be a radical change to the setting, but that's my opinion. YMMV, etc.



Celebrim said:


> And in my experience, this is what the best FR DM's do - they just dump what they don't like and use what they can.  There are things about the material available for FR that are very useful, even if the the FR as a setting as a whole isn't.  For example, just having all those city maps and names at hand can save you an enormous amount of time as a DM.




And this is why I don't understand all the Forgotten Realms hatred out there. Disinterest, I can understand. The setting just doesn't do it for some people, and that's fine. But to actively avoid a setting or to hate it just because of specific characters exist in a published book  - that I don't understand. The entire game is based on the premise of "here are the guidelines for playing the game. Modify them as you see fit to make the game more enjoyable. Here are supplements and adventures for you to use to further enhance your fun. Change what you like!" Yet people seem to think that they are required to run the Realms as published. That Elminister must be there to save the day if the PCs fail or that Waterdeep has to be the shining bright star of a city in the North.

Having said that, I do understand the backlash against players who insist on knowing all the minutiae of a setting and insist that the rest of the group know and follow that level of detail. If I had a player that owned every book and knew the full "canon" time line by heart and insisted that this town doesn't belong in this spot or that the Harpers would help the PCs because of X reason or whatever, that player would be reminded that our group does not slavishly follow canon, and if they can't enjoy our game that way, they are welcome to find another game.

As an aside, I've met and gamed with Ed Greenwood. He's a helluva a nice guy. He definitely identifies with Elminister to a degree. Whether this was true in the early days of his gaming, I don't know and couldn't say. However, I will say that the brief game that I did play with him as DM, not once did any of the uber NPCs show up, even to get us moving on our way with the plot. I think Elminister is just a way for him to express his creativity in written format.

Except for the beard. That's definitely Elminister.


----------



## Hella_Tellah (Aug 20, 2010)

Uzzy said:


> Exactly. The level of detail is, for me, a lifesaver. I can consult huge amounts of material for inspiration as to what sort of game I want to run. If I need an NPC, there's thousands. If I need a city, there's hundreds. If I need a plot hook, there's dozens. But somehow this doesn't stop me creating my own NPC's, or cities or whatever. I simply do not understand it when people argue that the level of detail stops them creating. Are DM's unable to ignore the detail they don't need and use the detail they want to?
> 
> And sure, there are setting lawyers out there who have read every single product. But again, you're the DM. Remind them of rule zero, and if needed, grab a heavy gaming book and smack em round the head, telling them that it's your world, and that as the DM you have the right to change things. Further, aren't there setting lawyers for anything? Why does that only seem to be a bad mark against the Forgotten Realms?




The problem for me is that the most enthusiastic, interested players will gobble up all the available information on the setting. That's great, in that they do a lot of the legwork in hooking themselves into the setting and bringing a lot of the setting's unique flavor to the table. The trouble is that they're also likely to be a little pickier than other players about getting things right, and they're more likely to seek out the famous places and people in the setting. If I don't have a good working knowledge of that stuff, the players will be disappointed.

If I as a DM want to entertain my most enthusiastic players, I need to know an awful lot about the setting, and there's so much written about the Realms that I feel I could probably never please an FR fan. There's just no way I can keep up, and I sort of feel the same about most of the long-running settings. I'd have to spend hundreds of hours reading up on Greyhawk to ever run the game for a Greyhawk fan, as well. And frankly, I really don't like reading fiction based on games, which is where a lot of the setting information is to be had.


----------



## Greg K (Aug 20, 2010)

I like it provided we limit to the setting as presented in the original boxed set and FR series of supplements, Ed's magic item articles in Dragon, and then throw in the 2e FR deity books.  

Time of Troubles, Spell Plague and the over development that followed over the years? No thanks.


----------



## Alzrius (Aug 20, 2010)

the Jester said:


> Er, that's not how the GH pantheons work at all.




No kidding; I was using hyperbole to illustrate that that's not how the FR pantheons work at all, either.



> _If you were a magic-user, yes, you MIGHT worship Boccob. But you also might worship Wee Jas, Zagyg or another god entirely.  If you're a FR mage, you pretty much worship Mystra._




Unless you worship Azuth, or Savras (divination), or Velsharoon (necromancy), or Shar (shadow magic). Or, for that matter, a deity of magic from a different regional pantheon (such as the Mulhorandi pantheon's Isis) or racial pantheon (such as the elven pantheon's Corellon).



> _Likewise, a fighter might choose to follow Hextor, Heironeous, Kord, Kelanen or any number of other gods, demipowers or quasi-deities._




Yeah, and an FR fighter could choose to worship Tempus, Torm, Helm, Garagos, Red Knight, etc.



> _FR's deities, imho, were much more one-dimensional (at least in their initial incarnation). Greyhawk's pantheons- because there are several- seem to have a lot more depth to me. But that may well be because of my personal affection for GH vs. my personal antipathy towards FR._




If by "initial incarnation" you mean the first boxed set, then maybe that's true...but that stopped being true quite a long time ago. Things like the "big three" F&A books pretty much put that issue to rest. Where's my big sourcebook dedicated to the Greyhawk gods?

I'm sorry, but it's just not true that the gods of the Forgotten Realms are underdeveloped compared to Greyhawk's.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 20, 2010)

Alzrius said:


> I'm sorry, but it's just not true that the gods of the Forgotten Realms are underdeveloped compared to Greyhawk's.



One-dimensional is not the same as underdeveloped.

Greyhawk never had a single product detailing deities. Though the Living Greyhawk campaign compiled a unified download with every Greyhawk deity. Free.


----------



## Alzrius (Aug 20, 2010)

Eric Anondson said:


> One-dimensional is not the same as underdeveloped.




Presumably if something is well-developed, it's going to have multiple dimensions. Otherwise, why are you developing it?



> _Greyhawk never had a single product detailing deities. Though the Living Greyhawk campaign compiled a unified download with every Greyhawk deity. Free._




I know, I downloaded it several times (whenever it updated) - it's a great reference document, but in terms of actually fleshing out the deities it lists, I'd say at most it approaches FR 3E's _Faiths & Pantheons_, which itself didn't live up to its 2E predecessor sourcebooks on the gods, in usefulness.

The bottom line is that there's really no recourse for saying that the Greyhawk deities were more multidimensional/developed than the Forgotten Realms deities. The latter had more novels featuring them and more sourcebooks describing and detailing them. Beyond that, they seemed to get nearly identical treatment - various articles examining them and discussing them in the magazines, for instance.

If there's something intrinsic to the Greyhawk pantheons that lets them eclipse the FR deities in terms of quality, then I'd honestly like people to inform me as to what it is. So far, the only thing I can pick up on is that some people enjoy how the Flanaess had multiple ethnic pantheons represented throughout it; that you could find Suloise and Flan deities in the same regions, for example, since their people were intermingled, whereas the different pantheons in the Realms were geographically isolated for the most part - you had the Faerunian (super-)pantheon for Faerun, the Mulhorandi gods for Mulhorand, etc.

That's certainly cool for the Greyhawk gods, but it's hardly multi-dimensional of them.


----------



## Greg K (Aug 20, 2010)

Eric Anondson said:


> Greyhawk never had a single product detailing deities. Though the Living Greyhawk campaign compiled a unified download with every Greyhawk deity. Free.




By a single product, do you mean  a single book or never done?  If the latter, you have the following  

1e: Dragon Magazine

By Gary Gygax
67 Greyhawk Deities
68  Greyhawk Deites (Celestian, Farlanghn,Ehlonna, Pholzus, Tritheron)
69 Greyhawk Deities (Istus, Obad-hai)
70 Greyhawk Deities (Boccob, zagyg, Oldimarra)
71  Greyhawk Deities (Erythnul, Incubalos, Nerull, Ralishaz, Wastri)
71 Greyhawks World (Heward, Keoghtom,Murlyand, Kelanen),


If you want to include them as part of Greyhawk, you also have the following:
Non human deitiy articles by Roger Moore: Dragon 58-63

Lendore Isle gods by Len Lakofa: the articles were printed somewhere between issues 70 and 80  (Lendore Isle was where modules L1: Bone Hill and L2 Assasin's Knot took place.  The articles include the first appearance of Wee Jas and Kord)

3rd Edition:
PHB

Complete Divine (reintroduces Pholzus, Istus, Tritheron and others).

Sean Reynold's Core Belief Articles in Dragon (Boccob, Oldimara, Pelor, Vecna, Wee Jas, Heironeous, Hextor, St. Cuthbert)


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 20, 2010)

Greg K said:


> By a single product, do you mean  a single book or never done?



Heh, rereading I can see the confusion. I meant an all-encompassing singular resource that exhaustively covered all deities. 

BTW, there was a Living Greyhawk Journal article introducing some hero deities.


----------



## jeffh (Aug 20, 2010)

The crunch, and even some of the stuff that's a mix of interdependent crunch and fluff (prime example: the 2E deity books), is general-purpose enough that I can import it into other settings with few problems. So I do own a number of FR books, such as the aforementioned 2E deity trilogy and the 3E Magic of Faerun and Monsters of Faerun. I also rather like Waterdeep, and have considered doing games that just take place in and around it (possibly including Undermountain).

Most of what I know of the rest of the setting leaves me kind of meh, but the real obstacle is that there's so _much_ of it and so many people who know it much better than I do. It seems like a lot of work for very little benefit relative to what I already get from settings I know better (Mystara, Cerilia, Dark Sun, my own Scarlos setting, to some extent Eberron, any of several settings I could import from various videogames if so minded).


----------



## Celebrim (Aug 20, 2010)

Alzrius said:


> The bottom line is that there's really no recourse for saying that the Greyhawk deities were more multidimensional/developed than the Forgotten Realms deities.




Sure there is.



> The latter had more novels featuring them and more sourcebooks describing and detailing them.




You seem to think that providing details is the same thing as giving something depth or quality.  You can provide alot of details but it doesn't add depth or sophistication of conception to the original ideas.  They still remain one diminsional, shallow, and unimaginative.  They are just a near random collection of deities from the original Deities and Demigods, who sometimes have been given different names.  I don't even understand why you would defend them given there well known origin.  Faiths and Avatars deserves some praise for recognizing that players and DM's were better served by more details about the church, worship and clerics of a deity than they were stat-blocks (a fault commonly noted in the earlier D&D books from the beginning), but that didn't make the deities themselves or the overall pantheon more interesting.



> If there's something intrinsic to the Greyhawk pantheons that lets them eclipse the FR deities in terms of quality, then I'd honestly like people to inform me as to what it is.




In a word, family.  One of the intrinsic parts of any decently well realized pagan pantheon is that it's going to have a meaty soap opera going on of who has married who, and who has slept with who, and who is related to who and so forth.  A good pagan pantheon mimics the structure and conflicts of a small tribe of people, or sometimes several small rival tribes.  Evolved polytheistic religions pick up these ideas of the deities as incarnations of abstract philosophical concepts and lay that over the top, but the core is always this tribal soap opera instantly recognizable to anyone who has lived in a fairly small community.  There are other things, but that's a good of a start as any.


----------



## jeffh (Aug 20, 2010)

the Jester said:


> FR's deities, imho, were much more one-dimensional (at least in their initial incarnation). Greyhawk's pantheons- because there are several- seem to have a lot more depth to me. But that may well be because of my personal affection for GH vs. my personal antipathy towards FR.



Have you looked at any of the FR products specifically dedicated to the deities? Faiths & Avatars and its two sequels (for 2E) in particular just seem obviously to be best-of-breed, at least to me. I can't imagine giving those a read and still calling FR deities "underdeveloped".

(Especially compared to Greyhawk ones - who do you have to kill to get _any_ information about them? Some people seem to know a lot about them but I can't for the life of me figure out where that information actually comes from.)


----------



## Sepulchrave II (Aug 20, 2010)

I bought the old 1e boxed set back in the 80s because a friend of mine raved about it. It was ok, but thought it didn't hold a candle to Greyhawk.

I bought the 3e version because of its production values - it's a work of art. But I don't like the world it describes. There's too much of _everything_ in FR. I stole some feats, spells and prestige classes - thinking about it, maybe I wouldn't have bought it if there hadn't been such a dearth of 3e books when it was released. 

I've never read an FR novel, and never will, so have no opinion on backstory, canon etc. and no attachment to continuity.


----------



## karolusb (Aug 20, 2010)

IronWolf said:


> No.
> 
> The number of realm shattering events can be frustrating. But I can work around those by simply playing in my preferred era. With so many territories and regions to play in it is easy to stay in the era you want and change the feel of the game.
> 
> The level of detail to some areas is a bit over the top. This is still relatively easily worked around by setting things in lesser known areas, advising players that you may not follow canon exactly or simply focusing the campaign on a more finite area or topic.




Issue 1:
So here I am, poor teenager, and a box set with the most beautiful maps I have ever seen comes out.  I am poor (two years earlier AFDC poor), but I wrangle up what money I can and buy it.  I was awesome.  A brief sketch of a large world with beautiful (if horribly conceived) maps.  Nice pantheons, a mix of the old and new etc.  

Oh wait, shortly thereafter they kill half the gods, "break" magic, kingdoms change without so much as a nod to the products I have already shelled out for. I am not talking over 20 years, I am talking about the first 2.  

Issue 2: 
I hate Elminster.  Yep hate him, hate the Harpers et. al..  At the end of the day FR appealed (if only briefly) to adolescent me.  Some guy got to publish the setting where his character was a godlike figure.  It was juvenile wish fulfillment at it's best.  Not for me of course (unless I was GMing), but for some other guy.  

As an adult, my characters have flaws, and so it annoys me when Greenwood's don't.  

All that said I play FR if that it what is run.  Heck I recently ran a game that was nominally FR.  Bloodstone, though the original implies it is in Greyhawk, by the third in the series they had firmly retconned into FR, and one of the players was really excited that it was FR for their back-story (I didn't care, just needed a good map of Damara).  I am just disillusioned with it.  I wouldn't spend money on it, wouldn't dig out my old materials to really delve into it.


----------



## Aldarc (Aug 20, 2010)

I do not hate FR, but I do dislike it. But where to start? People have already enumerated a fair amount of my problems with FR in this thread. So how about a thought experiment? 

Q: How would you go about describing the setting of Dark Sun? 
Re: Most people are quickly able to identify its primary features: dying world, harsh deserts, survival, tyrannical sorcerer-kings, defiling arcane magic, city-states, slavery, post-apocalyptic fantasy. 

Q: How would you go about describing the setting of Eberron? 
Re: Again, people only vaguely familiar with the setting will quickly list the prevalence of magic and magical technology, pulp noir, Last War, draconic prophecy, dragonmarks (and families), warforged, etc. 

Q: How would you go about describing the setting of Ravenloft? 
Re: Again, you will probably hear something about gothic/Victorian fantasy, lords of dread, mists, vampires, dark, terror. 

Q: How would you go about describing the setting of Planescape? 
Re: Probably philosophically-based factions, Sigil - a city of doors, planes and portals, metropolitan city filled with all races and monsters. 

Q: Now, how would you go about describing the setting of Forgotten Realms? 
Re: While FR enthusiasts may be able to perform this task, I have all too frequently encountered gamers, among friends and gaming strangers in gaming shops, who find the question challenging - even among people who claim to love FR. Even those I know who hate the first four examples were able to quickly identify the key themes, features, and flavor that unites the setting. Eberron is also a kitchen sink setting, but its central themes unites the world setting and gives these kitchen sink elements a focus. 

IMO, Forgotten Realms lacks anything in particular that makes it stand out as a setting. While FR fans can tell me a thousand ways that I am wrong, it will probably do little to change my perception, because there are so many other things about the setting that turn my interest away. It is far too generic of a kitchen sink fantasy setting. It tries to do too much all at once - have every race and culture - and spreads itself thin in the process. The setting lacks unity. The world feels haphazardly assembled of various parts and lacking in focus. Through the reception history of FR, it sought to appeal to as many fans as possible by including as much as possible. "Let's put generic fantasy Asia land over here. Generic fantasy Mesoamerica over here. Generic fantasy ancient Egypt over here." And so on. FR apologetics in this thread have listed reasons why this is the case, but that does not absolve FR of the problem.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 20, 2010)

WayneLigon said:


> 2. The 'FR style' city maps give me the eye-twitch. Their buildings never touch each other, etc.




Aagh, yes - this is a big problem with a lot of fantasy-RPG cities though, not just FR.  I experienced it with the Endhome City map when running Lost City of Barakus from Necromancer, I had to just mentally redraw it.

There are exceptions - TSR's Lankhmar set, Judges' Guild City State of the Invincible Overlord - but many more that have the suburban 'garden city' look like 2e TSR Greyhawk.


----------



## Bluenose (Aug 20, 2010)

jeffh said:


> Have you looked at any of the FR products specifically dedicated to the deities? Faiths & Avatars and its two sequels (for 2E) in particular just seem obviously to be best-of-breed, at least to me. I can't imagine giving those a read and still calling FR deities "underdeveloped".
> 
> (Especially compared to Greyhawk ones - who do you have to kill to get _any_ information about them? Some people seem to know a lot about them but I can't for the life of me figure out where that information actually comes from.)




Compare them to the treatment of religion in Book of the Righteous, Cults of Prax, Storm Clan, Harnmaster Gods, or even Faiths of Eberron. You will, I suspect, not feel quite the same way about them.


----------



## Bluenose (Aug 20, 2010)

reported


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Aug 20, 2010)

Hella_Tellah said:


> I dislike how much of the setting is already mapped out and broadly familiar to most D&D players. That makes it great for computer games and novelizations, but for my style of play, I need to be able to make more stuff up on the fly. In a homebrew world, or any setting that has less material nailed down, I can just plop a sprawling metropolis down anywhere I like. If a player makes a character dedicated to eradicating the undead, I can put a kingdom run by a lich right next door. I can't really do that in the Realms.




yup, same here.

I LOVED the 1st "grey" boxed set for the Realms, gorgeous art, layout, made it feel a "wild open world", still think it's one of the best RPG products, ever 

then BOOM! it all got "Elminsterized" to death, ugh! Mapped, explained, no mystery, so urbanized...bah!!
oddly I don't mind it as a "Player" but I HATE it as a DM.

"Player" alas, I rarely ever get to be a player as I'm perpetual DM, so I ger to be a "player" on the computer in Baldurs Gate etc.


----------



## DragonLancer (Aug 20, 2010)

I have ran games in FR and been a player for FR campaigns, and I don't mind the setting as it is. The only aspect of FR that finally I grew tired off was the sheer size of it. The intitial western side of the continent was ok, but then over time you had Kara-Tur, Zakhara, Maztica... etc. It just seemed far too big. Obviously you never had to use all of it but it felt like too much of an expansion.


----------



## CapnVan (Aug 20, 2010)

S'mon said:


> Aagh, yes - this is a big problem with a lot of fantasy-RPG cities though, not just FR.  I experienced it with the Endhome City map when running Lost City of Barakus from Necromancer, I had to just mentally redraw it.
> 
> There are exceptions - TSR's Lankhmar set, Judges' Guild City State of the Invincible Overlord - but many more that have the suburban 'garden city' look like 2e TSR Greyhawk.




This may also be a necessity of the printing process. If you look at the color city map in, for example, FR1 Waterdeep, you'll see that the buildings are definitely touching one another, as they might be expected to in a big, crowded city.

But on a number of other maps, they're not. On the other hand, on a lot of those other maps, like FR Adventures, they're being printed in one color. In order to distinguish the building from each other, you need to leave some space between them - otherwise it would look like they're all one building per block.

But I don't think they're always meant to be taken literally that way, that there are spaces between each and every building.


----------



## IronWolf (Aug 20, 2010)

karolusb said:


> So here I am, poor teenager, and a box set with the most beautiful maps I have ever seen comes out.  I am poor (two years earlier AFDC poor), but I wrangle up what money I can and buy it.  I was awesome.  A brief sketch of a large world with beautiful (if horribly conceived) maps.  Nice pantheons, a mix of the old and new etc.
> 
> Oh wait, shortly thereafter they kill half the gods, "break" magic, kingdoms change without so much as a nod to the products I have already shelled out for. I am not talking over 20 years, I am talking about the first 2.




I agree that can be frustrating, I don't like to have my gaming materials obsoleted either.  But one could have easily kept playing in the pre-Realm Shattering Event era if they chose to do so.  I frequently do this, choose the era and time frame I want to play in in the Realms and use that timeline for my campaigns.  I still reference my older sourcebooks even though my current FR campaign uses the 3.x sourcebooks for its primary timeline.




			
				karolusb said:
			
		

> I hate Elminster.  Yep hate him, hate the Harpers et. al..  At the end of the day FR appealed (if only briefly) to adolescent me.  Some guy got to publish the setting where his character was a godlike figure.  It was juvenile wish fulfillment at it's best.  Not for me of course (unless I was GMing), but for some other guy.




I know Elminster rubs some people the wrong way and nothing I post here will change that, so I am not going to try to change your mind on Elminster.   

I don't understand the Harper hate though.  So there is a secret organization of folks that operate in the background.  As a DM I control how involved the Harpers are apt to be in any given plot line.  If I declare the Harpers uninterested in the current campaign predicament then they aren't involved.  Who knows why, perhaps they know something greater and decide to let that line play out without their involvement.  It wouldn't be the first time they've done so.


----------



## Barastrondo (Aug 20, 2010)

IronWolf said:


> I don't understand the Harper hate though.  So there is a secret organization of folks that operate in the background.  As a DM I control how involved the Harpers are apt to be in any given plot line.  If I declare the Harpers uninterested in the current campaign predicament then they aren't involved.  Who knows why, perhaps they know something greater and decide to let that line play out without their involvement.  It wouldn't be the first time they've done so.




Okay, so there's this video game, Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance. It's a fun game, surprisingly! Pretty much a D&D-themed Diablo for consoles. And you're tooling around the FR, killing the crap out of heaps of bad guys, and moving toward some major climax. 

And then this hooded stranger in the inn who's been pestering me all game reveals he's a Harper. Fine. Then he says "Hey, do you want to join?" I say "no."

And... I can't go any further. The portal will not be opened for me to go kill even more Evil unless I learn the secret handshake and get on the mailing list. Apparently Evil will be allowed to run unchecked if the Harpers don't get their union dues. I say "no" again and again, but finally must cave and say "yes." Then I'm allowed to go fight Evil. They don't even give me anything to deal with the Evil, or send anyone to help me. They just wanted me in the organization so when I go topple the threat for them, they can claim credit.

It is completely unfair of me to allow a video game depiction to train me emotionally, but if I were in an FR game and someone announced themselves to be a Harper, I'd probably try to poison him.

(Also, tip of the hat to Neverwinter Nights for portraying paladins as so sufficiently faithless that they can't even make the basic leap of faith that "even if we suffer in this life, it serves a purpose, and we will be reunited in glory in the next." Aribeth, you are dumb as a sack of dead gibberlings.)


----------



## IronWolf (Aug 20, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> Okay, so there's this video game, Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance. It's a fun game, surprisingly! Pretty much a D&D-themed Diablo for consoles. And you're tooling around the FR, killing the crap out of heaps of bad guys, and moving toward some major climax.
> 
> And then this hooded stranger in the inn who's been pestering me all game reveals he's a Harper. Fine. Then he says "Hey, do you want to join?" I say "no."
> 
> ...




Well at least you admit it is unfair to allow what happened in a video game (notoriously known for railroading style of play) to so greatly impact your views on a campaign world.


----------



## Celebrim (Aug 20, 2010)

IronWolf said:


> Well at least you admit it is unfair to allow what happened in a video game (notoriously known for railroading style of play) to so greatly impact your views on a campaign world.




I think that the point is that the video game well reflects the style encouraged by the setting.  Keep in mind that FR had a reputation for being railroady long before Baldur's Gate because of FR PnP modules, not because of video games.  Honestly, Baldur's Gate video games are typically less railroads than the modules FR was initially defined by in gamer's minds.


----------



## Barastrondo (Aug 20, 2010)

IronWolf said:


> Well at least you admit it is unfair to allow what happened in a video game (notoriously known for railroading style of play) to so greatly impact your views on a campaign world.




Oh, the video games don't impact my views on a campaign world. As I said a ways upthread, I could never hate the Realms, as they were the spark needed to get me going on "I could build my own! And it could be based on everything _I_ like!" The Harpers are just a _portion_ of the world. And nuts to them.

Well, to be a little less tongue-in-cheek, the thing that bothers me a bit about the Harpers is that I haven't really seen a book encourage a way to make them "belong" to your play group. If they go corrupt, how do you take out the leadership? If you want to join them, how do you rise to lead them? They seem a little too fixed in one specific campaign role for my taste, at least as mortal organizations go, as though they're not meant to be used in roles where the PCs take control of the organization's destiny.

And also I very much like the archetype of the scarred, stoic warrior who triumphs over his enemies in exceptionally metal fashion, and having any ties with a bunch of people called "Harpers" clashes just a touch. However, that's really just a symptom of a larger reason why the FR is something I used to inspire myself to build my own world, and not something I use: the FR focuses on things like arcane magic and bardic tradition fairly heavily, and straight-up fightery goodness rather lightly. I prefer to emphasize the martial tradition much more.


----------



## Hella_Tellah (Aug 20, 2010)

Ooh, one more nit I want to pick: Kara-Tur, and more specifically, Wa and Kozakura.

They've got two islands that roughly simulate two different periods of Japanese history. They've named one of them "Child of the Cherry Blossoms" (it's so japany!). They named the other one "Harmony" (wa), but it's actually an official abbreviation for the country. Wa is based on the Warring States period (15th-17th Centuries), but both islands feature the Yakuza, which is like having the Godfather as a plot element in the American Revolution. Plus, the place names are largely real place names with one syllable changed, like "Tsukishima." And at one point in their history, Korea (I mean Koryo)* tries to invade Japan (err, Kozakura), but the fleet is wiped out by a _tsunami_. Only that was the mongols, and it was a typhoon, and... jeez, I just wished they'd made a fresh new history instead of screwing up real history.

It works for people who are just into katanas and ninjas and stuff, but for me, it's like playing a game where King Sconesandtea rules over Engleband, and they fight off the Italien armada while enduring a bombing raid from the Jerman Fluffwaffle.**

*Koryo is on the Choson peninsula, which is just not even trying.
**I would actually play such a game.


----------



## Alzrius (Aug 20, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> Sure there is.




You do realize that when you say that, you need to back it up with something, right?



> _You seem to think that providing details is the same thing as giving something depth or quality.  You can provide alot of details but it doesn't add depth or sophistication of conception to the original ideas._




That's true, but here's the thing - if you never provide any details at all, then you'll never be able to add depth or sophistication at all. The original idea will just stay the original idea, forever unexplored.



> _They still remain one diminsional, shallow, and unimaginative.  They are just a near random collection of deities from the original Deities and Demigods, who sometimes have been given different names._




Really? Please provide me with the original Deities and Demigods entries for Mystra, Lathander, Cyric, Ao, Mask, and others.



> _I don't even understand why you would defend them given there well known origin._




Because - even if I accepted your take on their origin, which I don't - I don't think something's defined by how it originally appears, but why how it subsequently grows and changes over time. Which is something the Greyhawk deities have yet to do.



> _Faiths and Avatars deserves some praise for recognizing that players and DM's were better served by more details about the church, worship and clerics of a deity than they were stat-blocks (a fault commonly noted in the earlier D&D books from the beginning), but that didn't make the deities themselves or the overall pantheon more interesting._




It outlined the natures of who the deities were, what their histories were, what their goals were...and knowing more about how their churches were organized did, by extension, make them more interesting.



> _In a word, family.  One of the intrinsic parts of any decently well realized pagan pantheon is that it's going to have a meaty soap opera going on of who has married who, and who has slept with who, and who is related to who and so forth.  A good pagan pantheon mimics the structure and conflicts of a small tribe of people, or sometimes several small rival tribes.  Evolved polytheistic religions pick up these ideas of the deities as incarnations of abstract philosophical concepts and lay that over the top, but the core is always this tribal soap opera instantly recognizable to anyone who has lived in a fairly small community.  There are other things, but that's a good of a start as any._




So you think the Greyhawk gods were better developed because Heironeous and Hextor are brothers, is that it?

You do an okay job outlining the terms of things you think are interesting, but thus far you've failed to describe how those things appear among the Greyhawk pantheons. Quite simply, at this point it's more about citing references for examples of the qualities you're assigning them than it is defining those qualities.

Where do you think Ralishaz really came into his own, as a character? Which novel or sourcebook really outlined the multiple facets of Xerbo? Beyond his portfolio, who is Phyton, really?

I'm not saying ALL of the Greyhawk deities are barren of depth of character - the same way not all of the FR gods of paragons of fully-realized characters either - but beyond the handful of exceptions like Vecna or Iuz, most of the Greyhawk deities have simply gotten the same three paragraphs of information, endlessly rephrased throughout different sourcebooks and articles (save for isolated instances of better writing, like the Core Beliefs series in _Dragon_).


----------



## Maldin (Aug 20, 2010)

I don't "hate" the Realms. Much of the material is, from a writing and design point of view, really quite good quality. Award-winning, even. If its your cup of tea, I would never even suggest to a DM "don't use it". However I have never had any interest whatsoever in using it as MY campaign world. Large numbers of people have already stated all of my reasons, but just to add my voice:

*Ridiculously overpowered high fantasy

*Large numbers of untouchable break-every-rule NPCs meddling everywhere

*A world that literally contains almost every type of geographic and political region imaginable, all tossed together haphazardly like a nightmare salad

*So much setting material background that details every corner of the world, that you couldn't add anything original without fear of later finding out another product has already filled it with some random subsetting

*A history that is so overly detailed that there are no mysteries left for DMs to customize to tease players with - they can just look it up

*Gods that meddle with the world at a drop of the hat

*A zillion novels that magnify all of the above problems like a giant burning magnifying glass from the heavens.

... and there are many more good points that people have made that I would agree with.

All of the above reasons why I dislike the Realms as a campaign setting is what Greyhawk is not, and are exactly the reasons why I like Greyhawk as a campaign setting so much.

Denis, aka "Maldin"
Maldin's Greyhawk http://melkot.com
Loads of edition-neutral Greyhawk goodness... maps, magic, mysteries, mechanics, and more. Lots of stuff you could even use in a Realms campaign!


----------



## IronWolf (Aug 20, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> I think that the point is that the video game well reflects the style encouraged by the setting.




I'm just not seeing it.  I've run numerous campaigns in the Forgotten Realms and never felt railroaded or constrained in shaping the campaign as a DM.  Video games tend to be "railroady" by their very nature the programmer can only account for so many options and has to push people into those options so I am skeptical of a claim that because a video game is "railroady" that it a reflection of a style encouraged by the Realms.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Keep in mind that FR had a reputation for being railroady long before Baldur's Gate because of FR PnP modules, not because of video games.  Honestly, Baldur's Gate video games are typically less railroads than the modules FR was initially defined by in gamer's minds.




I can understand modules being called "railroady", but how does an entire setting get classified as "railroady"?  A campaign setting is just a framework for a DM to work with and tweak as needed to fit his or her needs.

I've read several FR modules, but never run one, so maybe that's why I don't get a feeling that the FR campaign world is forcing me to railroad my players as a DM.  I've always either dropped other modules into the world or written my own stuff for campaigns I have based in the Realms.


----------



## IronWolf (Aug 20, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> Oh, the video games don't impact my views on a campaign world. As I said a ways upthread, I could never hate the Realms, as they were the spark needed to get me going on "I could build my own! And it could be based on everything _I_ like!" The Harpers are just a _portion_ of the world. And nuts to them.




Ah!  I do recall your earlier post.  I hadn't linked the initial post and the one I responded to regarding Harpers and Baldur's gate to the same poster.



			
				Barastrondo said:
			
		

> Well, to be a little less tongue-in-cheek, the thing that bothers me a bit about the Harpers is that I haven't really seen a book encourage a way to make them "belong" to your play group. If they go corrupt, how do you take out the leadership? If you want to join them, how do you rise to lead them? They seem a little too fixed in one specific campaign role for my taste, at least as mortal organizations go, as though they're not meant to be used in roles where the PCs take control of the organization's destiny.




To me these are details a DM would fill in for their campaign.  As a DM I can define the Harper leadership, the paths to leadership or which leadership might need taken out if the Harpers were to head down a more nefarious path.  Or perhaps a story that doesn't need the entire Harpers organization overthrown, but a smaller plot only affecting a particular region where the Harpers and leadership in that area need overthrown.




			
				Barastrondo said:
			
		

> And also I very much like the archetype of the scarred, stoic warrior who triumphs over his enemies in exceptionally metal fashion, and having any ties with a bunch of people called "Harpers" clashes just a touch. However, that's really just a symptom of a larger reason why the FR is something I used to inspire myself to build my own world, and not something I use: the FR focuses on things like arcane magic and bardic tradition fairly heavily, and straight-up fightery goodness rather lightly. I prefer to emphasize the martial tradition much more.




I sort of have a player that fits the scarred, stoic warrior type in a campaign I am running now.  He has no Harper ties though.

I think your last point is one I can most agree with though.  If the FR focus of arcane magic and bardic tradition figure too heavily I can certainly see why you would borrow bits and pieces as you need or head off and create your own world that more closely matches what you feel a campaign world should be like.  

I can certainly understand that FR is not for everyone.  There are certainly other campaign settings that I would rather not DM or play in.  And generally it isn't because there is something *wrong* with the setting it just doesn't match my tastes in a campaign setting.


----------



## Philosopher (Aug 20, 2010)

Alzrius said:


> Really? Please provide me with the original Deities and Demigods entries for Mystra, Lathander, Cyric, Ao, Mask, and others.




Dragon Magazine #54 (Oct. '81), "Down-to-Earth Divinity", by Ed Greenwood. He describes how he made up his pantheon based on deities from Deities & Demigods. (Incidentally, he also appeals to Elminster the Sage, and mentions using a "Godswar" in which some gods are killed, others stripped of their power, new ones ascending, etc., in order to explain differences in moving from the D&D rules to the AD&D rules.) Some examples:

He explicitly says Azuth is a renamed Aarth (from the Nehwon - i.e., Fritz Leiber's - mythos. Bane is the equivalent of Druaga (from the Babylonian mythos). Loviatar and Mielikki are directly from the Finnish mythos (including the names). There are plenty of others that follow this pattern. Mystra seems to be his own creation (although he describes her as "a manifestation of the Cosmic Balance"), as do a few others.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Aug 20, 2010)

The biggest thing that gets me about this is the claim of it being "too detailed of a setting".

Rubbish.

As a DM you have the option of picking what you like and throwing away what you don't like.

It does have a lot of information, but even at that it doesn't really restrain nor impair one's creativity when designing a campaign.

For example, who are the actual Lords of Waterdeep? There are families mentioned, but to my knowledge, no specific NPCs detailed. If you want, you can detail these NPCs as needed to your campaign.

And what if a Black Dragon actually likes humans and human companions? Who says a dragon has to be living in a cave somewhere? Maybe it's actually posing as a Cleric in a temple to Gond or Mystra?  Maybe it actually has a large mansion right in the heart of Calimport? 

Also, there's a lot of other places to go and see too.

Extremely little is known of Halruua. Maybe there's a rebellion going on there or a conflict between religion and magic? Who are its nobles and ruling class? Who are its enemies?

You don't like Elminster? Well, maybe it's just a legend, a myth, like Gilgamesh or Heracles. Maybe he just doesn't exist at all?

Don't like his stats? They break the rules? Well, change his stats so they reflect the actual rules. Or create your own powerful mage.

So on and so forth.

There is a lot of information for the Realms, but there's nothing that says you can't add your own ideas to the setting.

Having a lot of information on a setting restricts nothing. You can add whatever you like.


----------



## Philosopher (Aug 20, 2010)

I'm finding the reasons for not liking the Realms interesting. Some don't like it because there's too much of a metaplot - others don't like it because it doesn't have a unifying theme. There seems to be a tension between these claims. I'm surprised that this isn't being debated.

I have some questions for those who find the Harpers too meddlesome. What do you think of the Circle of Eight that tries to maintain the Balance across the Flanaess? What do you think about the Wizards of High Sorcery who maintain control of magic throughout Ansalon and impose membership on all wizards?

There are things I don't care for about the Realms, but I still think it's a good setting. It has lots of good ideas, even if they're not implemented very well. But that poor implementation never really bothered me, because I _never_ run a setting as it's presented, _and I find it very odd that some people do_. I try to keep it recognizable, of course - otherwise, there's no point to using a published setting. One thing I like to do is turn what's written in the books into myths and tall tales. For example, Elminster has a reputation for being a powerful wizard and being incredibly old, but perhaps he isn't really. People say the Harpers and the Zhentarim have a hand in almost everything that goes on, but that can be attributed to people's love for a good conspiracy (just as some think the Masons are controlling everything in the world today).


----------



## Barastrondo (Aug 20, 2010)

Philosopher said:


> I'm finding the reasons for not liking the Realms interesting. Some don't like it because there's too much of a metaplot - others don't like it because it doesn't have a unifying theme. There seems to be a tension between these claims. I'm surprised that this isn't being debated.




Man, I've done my time in the metaplot trenches (for something totally not D&D, mind), and I have to say, heavy metaplot does not necessarily connote a unifying theme. Metaplots by their very nature can easily spin out of control.



> I have some questions for those who find the Harpers too meddlesome. What do you think of the Circle of Eight that tries to maintain the Balance across the Flanaess? What do you think about the Wizards of High Sorcery who maintain control of magic throughout Ansalon and impose membership on all wizards?




Again, I'm far more interested in a more martial-heavy approach to a campaign. However, I do like the idea of the Circle of Eight, because a) there are only eight of them, so if they're not treated as omnipotent, they're going to miss out on a lot of things, b) they're seriously fallible, having been gutted by treachery before, and c) they can play an adversarial role as well as a helping role, and thanks to b), that means that PCs can defy them in a way that proves interesting instead of just automatically losing. They seem eminently usable to me.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 20, 2010)

IronWolf said:


> I can understand modules being called "railroady", but how does an entire setting get classified as "railroady"?



Powerful NPCs can be a railroading tool if they get in the PCs' faces. I'm not sure if this is encouraged in any FR materials or not.

These NPCs can also act as cavalry, riding to the rescue if the PCs get in over their heads. I believe Elminster is intended to serve this function. This isn't exactly railroading but it's not far off. It can annoy players if they feel they don't have 'freedom to fail'.


----------



## Celebrim (Aug 20, 2010)

Alzrius said:


> You do realize that when you say that, you need to back it up with something, right?




Thought I did.  Clearly we have different perceptions.



> Really? Please provide me with the original Deities and Demigods entries for Mystra, Lathander, Cyric, Ao, Mask, and others.




But this very carefully selected excerpt only serves to prove my point.

Tyr = Norse god Tyr.
Meilikki = Finnish goddess Meilikki
Tymora = Greek/Roman goddess Tyche
Akadi = Moorcock deity Lassa
Loviatar = Finnish goddes Loviatar
Oghma = Celtic hero-deity Oghma
Kossuth = Moorcock deity Kakatal
Sune = Greek deity Aphrodite
Silvanus = Celtic diety Silvanus
Ilmater = Leiber diety Issek of the Jug
Gruumbar = Moorcock deity Grome

And so on and so forth.

It's a bottom up pantheon composed of deities chosen out of the Deities and Demigods manual.  I'm not sure thats even contriversial; it's a matter of historical record.  

So, where do dieties like Mystra and Mask come from?  They enter the pantheon because after Ed chooses his favorite 'god of Paladins', 'god of Druids', and 'god of Rangers' from the Deities and Demigods, he finds he lacks a 'god of Theives' and 'god of Magic-Users' with the simple portfolio he wants for each of his 'god of <class X>' buckets.  So he creates deities like 
Mystra to be the 'god of Magic' (which is kinda like being 'the god of Physics') and Mask to be the 'god of theives'.



> Which is something the Greyhawk deities have yet to do.




Earlier you claimed the problem was I wasn't very familiar with the FR deities.  Here I return the accusation to you.



> So you think the Greyhawk gods were better developed because Heironeous and Hextor are brothers, is that it?




As a gross oversimplification, yes, yes I do.  Although, once again, you keep substituting 'developed' (your point) for 'concieved' (my point).  I freely admit much detail has been lavished on the Forgotten Realms.  It has been my point all along that this has never served to make the setting particularly interesting.

But, back to the topic of family, it's that you can write sentences about the Greyhawk deities like:

"Berna is the third child of the serpent god Meyanok, transformed by the power of Xanag from a spirit of hate to one of passion. Her older siblings are Vara and Damaran. Her grandmother is Breeka and her great-grandmother is the sun goddess Nola, who was awakened by the creator god Uvot."



> Which novel or sourcebook really outlined the multiple facets of Xerbo?




Here I must confess that if the multitude FR novels make the FR deities seem interesting, that I would have completely missed out on that.  Sadly (or not), this situation is likely to persist and my opinion remain unchanged, because the few FR novels that were thrust upon me by eager friends proved to be almost wholly disappointing and in some cases rank with the worst fantasy fiction I've ever read.  If it is your opinion that the FR novels make the FR deities and pantheon seem truly deep and interesting, then I can only take your word for it.



> Beyond his portfolio, who is Phyton, really?




The incarnation of a very troubling philosophical question that remains throughly relevant to modern life, namely, "If nature is cruel and indifferent to man, is man's domination over nature a good thing, or is it merely destruction given a pretty face?"  I'll leave it to the archivists and lore masters to dig up any instances of that being detailed in published works, but right off the bat reading his description I'd find him more interesting to include in my campaign world than any FR deity.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 20, 2010)

Philosopher said:


> Some don't like it because there's too much of a metaplot - others don't like it because it doesn't have a unifying theme. There seems to be a tension between these claims.



I don't think there's any tension there. Just because the world contains fantasy ancient Egypt and fantasy middle ages Arabic nations and fantasy medieval France and fantasy Celtic Britain* doesn't mean the gods can't come down from heaven, wreck all of them and change the laws of magic again.

*This is something I have no problem with, I like kitchen sink.


----------



## IronWolf (Aug 20, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> Powerful NPCs can be a railroading tool if they get in the PCs' faces. I'm not sure if this is encouraged in any FR materials or not.
> 
> These NPCs can also act as cavalry, riding to rescue if the PCs get in over their heads. I believe Elminster is intended to serve this function. This isn't exactly railroading but it's not far off. It can annoy players if they feel they don't have 'freedom to fail'.




Yes, they could be used as such.  I don't think they are intended to be used as such though.  Or at least I can say I do not use them as such in campaigns I run.

I wonder how much is attributed to faults of the campaign setting when things such as these are more likely a difference in DMing styles and such?  While I DM FR in a very non-railroady, non-"look at all these powerful NPCs" type of way perhaps other DMs are using these same NPCs in a much more overhanded manner souring people's impressions to the setting.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 20, 2010)

Diamond Cross said:


> As a DM you have the option of picking what you like and throwing away what you don't like.



But isn't that true of anything? In talking about what we like/don't like about the Realms we have to refer to the published texts, not our home versions. If there's a lot in the text that's objectionable then that's a bad product.


----------



## Odhanan (Aug 20, 2010)

*1. Do you avoid Forgotten Realms products?*

4e FR products, yes. Other FR products, not really, though I'm not running FR at the moment. 

*2. Do you like either Pre or Post spellplague only, and if so which one and why?*

I prefer Grey Box FR. Pre-_Times of Trouble_. I'm okay with 3rd ed FR. The rest I can do without. I like the Grey Box because it's the most open, sandbox iteration of FR. It's free of uber-powerful NPCs, narrativist bent, metaplot BS, and it's just an amazing setting. 3rd ed FR is by contrast extremely detailed, shock-full of ideas, and yet still open in many ways. The rest is just crap, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm opposed to metaplots. Opposed to modifications of settings through in-world events just to fit the new edition of the game, whatever that is. Sick of novels dictating the future of the setting. All that stuff goes through the window with me. There's no such thing as "canon" as far as RPG settings are concerned, to me. Otherwise I just don't run said setting.

*3. What Don't you like about Forgotten Realms?*

See above.


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Aug 20, 2010)

Diamond Cross said:


> You don't like Elminster? Well, maybe it's just a legend, a myth, like Gilgamesh or Heracles.



XP worthy!  Only I have to spread it around......


----------



## the Jester (Aug 20, 2010)

First off, to those of you defending the lame-ass FR pantheon- why? This is a thread about WHAT YOU DON'T LIKE ABOUT FR. A lot of people seem to not like the pantheon; they (we) find it shallow and superficial on many levels. 

Boom, opinion stated. 

Why are some of you guys so interested in debating this? If you want to do so, that's fine, but maybe start a new thread? I keep seeing a lot of "Oh, you have misconceptions" going on in here. NO- people have OPINIONS. Calling their opinion a misconception is silly- _it's an opinion._ Is it grounded in bad information? No, it's not. _It is grounded in the experience that the Realms have inflicted on D&D._ Again, just my opinion- but don't bother arguing, because there's no right and wrong here, there are _only opinions._

That said, I'll just join the chorus that says "has appeared in a bunch of supplements and novels" doesn't make a deity or pantheon _better_, it makes it _more exposed._ It's like a steak- it doesn't necessarily get better just because you cook it longer. 

Greyhawk's deities have had a lot of development, but the problem is that Greyhawk as a whole hasn't had a lot of world-specific stuff published for it since 1e, excepting the Paizo run on Dungeon. Their development is spread out through modules, articles and other places. 

FWIW, I find the 4e pantheon to be nearly as dissatisfying as the FR one, except for the fact that the gods are cooler (again, IMHO)- I will take Torog, Tharizdun and Vecna over Umberlee, Loviatar and Cyric any day.


----------



## Philosopher (Aug 20, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> Man, I've done my time in the metaplot trenches (for something totally not D&D, mind), and I have to say, heavy metaplot does not necessarily connote a unifying theme. Metaplots by their very nature can easily spin out of control.






Doug McCrae said:


> I don't think there's any tension there. Just because the world contains fantasy ancient Egypt and fantasy middle ages Arabic nations and fantasy medieval France and fantasy Celtic Britain* doesn't mean the gods can't come down from heaven, wreck all of them and change the laws of magic again.
> 
> *This is something I have no problem with, I like kitchen sink.




Okay, fair enough. I took "unifying theme" differently, but I see what you guys mean.



Barastrondo said:


> Again, I'm far more interested in a more martial-heavy approach to a campaign. However, I do like the idea of the Circle of Eight, because a) there are only eight of them, so if they're not treated as omnipotent, they're going to miss out on a lot of things, b) they're seriously fallible, having been gutted by treachery before, and c) they can play an adversarial role as well as a helping role, and thanks to b), that means that PCs can defy them in a way that proves interesting instead of just automatically losing. They seem eminently usable to me.




I think this is just the right way to use the CoE... and how I think the Harpers _should_ be used. Like I said, I think the main problem is implementation. It does seem like everyone you meet ends up being a member of the Harpers, which makes them seem very powerful because they're everywhere. (Nevermind the fact that when they keep revealing themselves, it's not much of a secret society anymore.) But there are ways of handling that in your own campaign. Perhaps many people _claim_ to be members of the Harpers when they're not really. So long as they don't commit evil acts in the name of the organization, the Harpers may not really care. In fact, they may find it useful - making them look more powerful by having agents everywhere. These people may admire the Harpers and share their aims. Perhaps they call themselves Harpers in the same way that I might call myself a secular humanist - it's a moral/political/philosophical/whatever framework that I basically agree with, and I proclaim that agreement with the label, even though I have never joined any organization promoting such a view.

There are many ways of being creative with the Realms. The fact that it has lots of detail doesn't get in the way of creativity - it's a _creative challenge_. Sometimes I find that the more constraints people have to work with, the greater the potential for creativity. I recently read a comment by someone (I think it was on the Paizo boards) that applies here. The basic sentiment is that thinking outside the box is a great thing, but not if you refuse to consider some of the potential that's still inside the box.


----------



## Philosopher (Aug 20, 2010)

the Jester said:


> First off, to those of you defending the lame-ass FR pantheon- why? This is a thread about WHAT YOU DON'T LIKE ABOUT FR. A lot of people seem to not like the pantheon; they (we) find it shallow and superficial on many levels.




Because it's a discussion board. If this was just about stating opinion without responding, there wouldn't be much point to it.



the Jester said:


> Why are some of you guys so interested in debating this? If you want to do so, that's fine, but maybe start a new thread? I keep seeing a lot of "Oh, you have misconceptions" going on in here. NO- people have OPINIONS. Calling their opinion a misconception is silly- _it's an opinion._ Is it grounded in bad information? No, it's not. _It is grounded in the experience that the Realms have inflicted on D&D._ Again, just my opinion- but don't bother arguing, because there's no right and wrong here, there are _only opinions._




The word "opinion" is used in (at least) two different ways. Insofar as it refers to one's tastes, then yes, there is no right and wrong. Insofar as it refers to a belief (such as about what the Realms is like), then opinions are either right or wrong. People are not merely stating that they like one thing and dislike another thing. They offer reasons why they like/dislike things. They _describe_ the Realms when referring to what they like/dislike. The reasons offered may be relevant to the point being made or they may not. The descriptions may be correct or they may not. There's _plenty_ of room for discussion here. If you just want to state your opinion without allowing discussion, set up a blog and disable comments.



the Jester said:


> That said, I'll just join the chorus that says "has appeared in a bunch of supplements and novels" doesn't make a deity or pantheon _better_, it makes it _more exposed._ It's like a steak- it doesn't necessarily get better just because you cook it longer.
> 
> Greyhawk's deities have had a lot of development, but the problem is that Greyhawk as a whole hasn't had a lot of world-specific stuff published for it since 1e, excepting the Paizo run on Dungeon. Their development is spread out through modules, articles and other places.
> 
> FWIW, I find the 4e pantheon to be nearly as dissatisfying as the FR one, except for the fact that the gods are cooler (again, IMHO)- I will take Torog, Tharizdun and Vecna over Umberlee, Loviatar and Cyric any day.




This, FWIW, I largely agree with (except for the 4e deities being cooler than the FR ones - Tharizdun and Vecna _are_ awesome, but that's because of their having been fleshed out in Greyhawk lore).


----------



## Diamond Cross (Aug 20, 2010)

I think people are having problem with the pantheon is not really because of them being two-dimensional, rather than there's very little information about them other than this is their spheres, and these are the people who worship them. I think people are confusing "not enough information" with being "two dimensional". If you don't have enough information about anybody, anybody is going to seem two dimensional.

In reality, most gods have a lot of legends about them.


----------



## Cor_Malek (Aug 20, 2010)

> For people here.
> 1. (why?) Do you avoid Forgotten Realms products?
> 2. Do you like either Pre or Post spellplague only, and if so which one and why?
> 3. What Don't you like about Forgotten Realms?



(from "So far we've got" part I gathered the 1st question should look as I edited, not just a y/n).

1. I find it *very* inconvenient to use a setting with so much (IMO) unnecessary splat. Describe the world, and in next products focus on certain areas or aspects. As a person that want's 1-2 setting books *tops*, FR causes a very bad case of archive panic. And I can't DM a game in FR with players that know this world better, because it's going to be annoying to them when I cleave through it, and put a brothel where they know a super-secret-angels club should be.
2. Huh?
3. It's not good in any aspect I look for. Or maybe there are worlds better in those aspects, which, as far as I'm concerned - is potayto-potatoh. I don't like it as grim, I can't imagine it as jolly-brutal, nor as loaded with Pathos. I guess it fits very well to what I think of as high-fantasy, but then again I don't really like them apples.
Put me down for "bleh H-F" ;-)

As for 3rd point, to elaborate a bit and give examples:
Grim worlds: world from The Witcher saga (yeah, not much help, I know. Imagine if the world from Romain Sardou's _Forgive us our Sins_ was fantasied up a notch). 3rd quart of XIV, XV-XVI c. middle-ages custom, and if I really felt like reading setting books - Warhammer world. Maybe XX c.
Jolly-Brutal: World from Firefly, Pathfinder Campaign Setting (expensive in print, so I keep mentioning it in gifts-conversations, nudge-nudge), Late XVI-XVIII c. custom, _Treasure Island_


----------



## Alzrius (Aug 20, 2010)

Philosopher said:


> Dragon Magazine #54 (Oct. '81), "Down-to-Earth Divinity", by Ed Greenwood. He describes how he made up his pantheon based on deities from Deities & Demigods. (Incidentally, he also appeals to Elminster the Sage, and mentions using a "Godswar" in which some gods are killed, others stripped of their power, new ones ascending, etc., in order to explain differences in moving from the D&D rules to the AD&D rules.) Some examples:
> 
> He explicitly says Azuth is a renamed Aarth (from the Nehwon - i.e., Fritz Leiber's - mythos. Bane is the equivalent of Druaga (from the Babylonian mythos). Loviatar and Mielikki are directly from the Finnish mythos (including the names). There are plenty of others that follow this pattern. Mystra seems to be his own creation (although he describes her as "a manifestation of the Cosmic Balance"), as do a few others.




Hmm, I wasn't aware of that. Touche.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> It's a bottom up pantheon composed of deities chosen out of the Deities and Demigods manual.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Although, once again, you keep substituting 'developed' (your point) for 'concieved' (my point).




This is where we seem to be having a fundamental disconnect. You seem to be of the opinion that how something is initially created sets how multi-dimensional it appears. I'm of the opinion that the circumstances of something's creation is far less important than what it does after that.

Maybe the FR deities were initially reflavored from the 1E Deities and Demigods - over several editions and numerous novels and sourcebooks, they've had enough written about them that they've quite clearly broken away from that and become their own characters.

The fact that the GR deities were more original in initial creation is, to me, meaningless, since they've gotten no further coverage since then save to restate the same few sparse paragraphs over and over. When you go thirty years without learning something new about a character beyond that, without them doing anything during that time, then that character is one-dimensional.

This is to say nothing of the fact that calling certain FR deities nothing more than place-holders for patrons of certain classes is equally true or the Greyhawk gods.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> But, back to the topic of family, it's that you can write sentences about the Greyhawk deities like:
> 
> "Berna is the third child of the serpent god Meyanok, transformed by the power of Xanag from a spirit of hate to one of passion. Her older siblings are Vara and Damaran. Her grandmother is Breeka and her great-grandmother is the sun goddess Nola, who was awakened by the creator god Uvot."




The topic of divine family is fundamentally irrelevant to what we're discussing. You've given, in your example, a single sentence about Berna, which tells us exactly one fact about who she is; the rest of it is just who she's related to, which doesn't expand her character. If you consider that multi-dimensional characterization, then there's not enough commonality in our respective definitions of that term to continue this discussion.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Here I must confess that if the multitude FR novels make the FR deities seem interesting, that I would have completely missed out on that.




Well, yeah, if you never actually read anything about a character, I suppose they can seem like not much of a character at all. Isn't that the crux of the "uninformed opinion"?



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Sadly (or not), this situation is likely to persist and my opinion remain unchanged, because the few FR novels that were thrust upon me by eager friends proved to be almost wholly disappointing and in some cases rank with the worst fantasy fiction I've ever read. If it is your opinion that the FR novels make the FR deities and pantheon seem truly deep and interesting, then I can only take your word for it.




No one's saying that all of the FR novels are good - certainly not me. I can't stand Ed Greenwood's writing (I'm getting ready to write a review of _Elminster Must Die_ that will make it clear how much I disliked the book), nor Elaine Cunningham's, and after over a dozen books of him, I'm finally sick of R. A. Salvatore's Drizzt books too.

There are other authors, however, who're quite good at what they write, and in many cases that deals with the various deities. But even beyond that, the fact that the deities as character grow and change over the course of novels and game supplements is, by definition, characterization - now, you can say that it's good or bad characterization, and you may not find the latter interesting, but it's a hard charge to make that even bad characterization is worse than none at all.

And "none at all" is exactly how much characterization the Greyhawk gods have gotten...how interesting is it to have virtual non-entities for gods?



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> The incarnation of a very troubling philosophical question that remains throughly relevant to modern life, namely, "If nature is cruel and indifferent to man, is man's domination over nature a good thing, or is it merely destruction given a pretty face?"




That's not _him_ though, that's a metaphor that you think he represents. The deity Phyton hasn't actually done anything except exist as a symbol for a question - making him interchangeable with any other relevant symbol. FR's Chauntea, herself a formerly wild goddess of nature who now represents controlled agriculture, stands in for the same metaphor easily enough.

D&D deities aren't supposed to be "philosophical questions that remain thoroughly reelvant to modern life." They're supposed to be interesting parts of a game - and in that regard, the forgotten footnotes of a pantheon are neither interesting nor fun.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Earlier you claimed the problem was I wasn't very familiar with the FR deities. Here I return the accusation to you.




Compared with someone who freely admits he hasn't read the material? I may have been unaware of a _Dragon_ article about their origin, but I'm far and away more familiar than you are with what's been done with them since, and that's the more relevant aspect of what we're discussing.


----------



## Barastrondo (Aug 20, 2010)

Philosopher said:


> There are many ways of being creative with the Realms. The fact that it has lots of detail doesn't get in the way of creativity - it's a _creative challenge_. Sometimes I find that the more constraints people have to work with, the greater the potential for creativity. I recently read a comment by someone (I think it was on the Paizo boards) that applies here. The basic sentiment is that thinking outside the box is a great thing, but not if you refuse to consider some of the potential that's still inside the box.




Oh, absolutely. At that level of work, though, you have to get a certain something out of a published setting that makes it worthwhile to use that setting instead of a homebrew, just like a homebrew setting has to justify the work you put into it. When you add players into the mix, they swing it further. My cousin would probably love if I ran an FR game; he's a big fan of all the novels. My brother likes the more personalized feel of a homebrew, and my wife's got heavy investment in my homebrew in specific. 

I do enjoy working within constraints, though. They're usually bizarre self-imposed constraints, mind, like "How am I going to do a St. Patrick's Day-themed game subtle enough that the players don't get it at first?" or "I'm going to base this assassin order on very heavily disguised Mortal Kombat characters."


----------



## Azgulor (Aug 20, 2010)

When the original gray box was released, I was an  early FR adopter.  The setting appealed to me in that in provided a more "zoomed in" view that Greyhawk and a rich history.  What sealed the deal were the early Gazetteer releases that provided greater detail on individual regions.  Even though I missed the human subdivisions of Oerth, FR seemed more "GM-friendly" to me in those younger days when I was still a relatively new GM.

Unfortunately, as the setting developed I became less enamored.  The success of the novel line, which I initially enjoyed, only seemed to accelerate all of the things I disliked.  

The setting became increasingly more High Fantasy to the point that trying to run a more traditional swords-n-sorcery game felt like a complete different setting and the work necessary to remove the over-the-top elements soon became work with a domino-effect that ate into time better spent developing NPCs & adventures.

The Time of Troubles was the beginning of the end, but it was only the first of what would come to be known as "Realms-Shaking-Events".  Consistency & creativity went out the window in what seemed to be an ever-escalating arms race of one-upmanship by TSR writers.  Every D&D campaign release seemed to be bolted onto the Realms in short order (Hordelands, Kara-Tur, Maztica, SpellJammer, etc.) & the ever-growing list of "races that ruled an ancient empire" resulted in abundant retconning of the setting in order to include them.  The overuse of uber-NPCs, even if only as window-dressing only kept the gasoline flowing to the fire.

Ultimately, I ended the campaign older & wiser about campaign design & campaign purchases and returned to Greyhawk.  To this day, I'm still stunned by how little I missed the setting I had used for 5+ years.

Given my departure from the Realms as a rpg setting, the Spellplague nonsense of 4e just seemed like more of the same, but turned up to 11.

To date, the Forgotten Realms is the only fantasy RPG setting where I've sold off or thrown away my entire stock of campaign material.  Haven't missed it a bit.


----------



## WizarDru (Aug 20, 2010)

Hmmm.  The Forgotten Realms.  Some thoughts:

I remember when the Realms was the 'new upstart'.  D&D had already had Greyhawk, but in all honesty, most people I knew used a homebrew setting or not true setting at all, at the time.  Stuff just happened.   When there was interconnection (as much by modules by EGG as anything else), it was loose and tenuous.  I knew one guy in high school who had the Greyhawk boxed set (the source of much envy), but when we played modules like Tomb of Horrors, Hidden Shrine of Tomaochan or Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, we didn't much care who the Duke of Geoff was or where the Great Kingdom was located.  It didn't tell us anything about vegepygmys, did it?

So, the Realms.  Do I dislike it?  I have no great dislike, but no great love, either.  I am effectively neutral about it.  My total investment in 30 years of D&D in the setting consists of The Ruins of Myth Drannor (which I came to regret as less useful than I wanted, then later came to appreciate for other uses), the 3e FRCS and....ummm....well, that's it, I guess.

I am surprised at the level of dislike for FR, but to each his own.  Why don't I like the setting all that much or use it?  A few reasons, historically:


*SO. MUCH. MATERIAL.*:   This was a symptom of 2e overall, to me, but as FR become the core setting for D&D then, it was something I associated with it, implicitly.  So many books and supplements and new things came out that it was overwhelming and difficult to track.  To someone like me, who was a poor student at the time and not into the new edition, it became untenable to keep up.  And the sheer volume of releases became a barrier to entry.  If I need the Magister to understand the module, I'll buy neither if money is tight.  
*Unstable Setting*:   It seemed to me, regardless of the reality, that FR changed.  A lot.  ALL THE TIME.  Hell, I enjoyed the heck out of the D&D FR comics from DC in 1989, written by Jeff Grubb, no less.  And what happens about a year into it?  The Time of Troubles.  It was funny watching the characters adapt to the changes that 2e wrought in comic form, but it seemed like FR, as a setting, tends to yank the rug out from underneath the DM a lot.  Some DMs surely enjoy the feeling of a 'living' setting and that's cool.  I'm more of a 'let's keep the sweeping changes to once a decade, 'kay?' kind of guy.
*Broke my Suspension of Disbelief Too Often*:  Much is made of the high-level NPCs, rampant magic and general over-the-top nature of Faerun.  I get that.  For me, it wasn't that Elminster was a huge power or even that every town had a few high-level NPCs, per se.  It was how the setting seemed...well, like a manufactured setting.  Adventuring groups were considered a valid and COMMON vocation.  Magic was everywhere and aplenty, but unlike Eberron, the setting didn't seem to recognize any changes evolving from this.    I can ignore stuff like 'Hong's Chickens', which emphasizes the 'don't think to hard about it' mantra.  But too much of FR's setting (as much as I learned of it) was too big of a break from I personally could ignore or rationalize, like the dungeon under Waterdeep.  It was a fun idea, but it just was more than I could rationally do.
*Didn't like the Aesthetics*:  Many have said the found the setting bland.  I wouldn't go so far.  I found, though, that I didn't find anything that really sang to me.  I didn't and probably still couldn't tell you what made the Forgotten Realms different, what it's individual 'feel' was.  I can look at Eberron or Dark Sun or Ravenloft or even Spelljammer and get something from it.  But the Realms felt like the all-inclusive setting that was generic.  This was true of Greyhawk, too...but Greyhawk felt so customizable...in fact, demanded it, that it felt more personal if you used it.  I felt like I could do about the same for my personal use (not saying I could produce anything on the scale or quality of FR for the use of others...in point of fact the production values always appeared great) and had little need for FR.
*Too Tied to the Fiction*:   I always felt, right or wrong, that I was expected to keep abreast of the changes to the setting and details in general, via the novels.  In the days before the Internet's adoption and spread of the 'World Wide Web', there were few ways to get around that notion.  As the years passed, that notion stuck, regardless of the reality.[/b]

I should also note that part of this comes from my moving away from D&D during 2e, a version I didn't play and heavily associated with the Forgotten Realms.  Guilt by association and all that.  When I returned with 3E, the Greyhawk I grew  up with returned, too.  

There are things about the FR I think are really interesting.  I love some of the ideas in play...both mechanical and conceptual.  I love when Ed Greenwood did FR articles of fantastic places.  I actually liked flipping through the Volo's Guides'....the ideas presented there were lots of fun and good kickoff points to adventures.  I've enjoyed occasionally playing in the Realms and certainly have found many adventures are setting agnostic.  And I marveled at one friend who took ALL the FR maps, laminated them and mounted them on a dorm room wall.

So while the Realms are not my favorite place to play and somewhere I've never run...I've never run anything other than Greyhawk, homebrew or generic.  I liked to read all those settings, and 'kind of' liked them.  But when it translated into SALES, most of the reasons above prevented me from opening my wallet.  The only settings I've ever bought were Greyhawk and Eberron (and the afore-mentioned FRCS).

Would I choose to run an FR game if I found something appealing?  Sure.  Myth Drannor could make a fun campaign, for example.  But there are more unique settings out there that have something more to offer, so it's not likely.  Dark Sun has a flavor that's much different from my homebrew and that's where FR loses ground.  It has no unique element for me to recommend it.  Which is not a problem, but it is a preference.


----------



## Aldarc (Aug 20, 2010)

Alzrius said:


> The fact that the GR deities were more original in initial creation is, to me, meaningless, since they've gotten no further coverage since then save to restate the same few sparse paragraphs over and over. When you go thirty years without learning something new about a character beyond that, without them doing anything during that time, then that character is one-dimensional.



Most game worlds are static snapshots of a given time and place, and most deities in pantheons do not do that much in thirty years. 



> The topic of divine family is fundamentally irrelevant to what we're discussing. You've given, in your example, a single sentence about Berna, which tells us exactly one fact about who she is; the rest of it is just who she's related to, which doesn't expand her character. If you consider that multi-dimensional characterization, then there's not enough commonality in our respective definitions of that term to continue this discussion.



It tells us that this deity is part of a living pantheon, in which her existence is tied into the existence of other deities. That makes it a real and organic pantheon as opposed to an artificial and synthetic pantheon. Real mythological pantheons demonstrate real human relationships. There are lineages. There are parental gods and rebellious children gods and all sorts of myths surrounding them. It makes the pantheon feel like an authentically real pantheon. 



> Well, yeah, if you never actually read anything about a character, I suppose they can seem like not much of a character at all. Isn't that the crux of the "uninformed opinion"?



I can read about the character outside of the novel itself. 



> No one's saying that all of the FR novels are good - certainly not me. I can't stand Ed Greenwood's writing (I'm getting ready to write a review of _Elminster Must Die_ that will make it clear how much I disliked the book), nor Elaine Cunningham's, and after over a dozen books of him, I'm finally sick of R. A. Salvatore's Drizzt books too.
> 
> There are other authors, however, who're quite good at what they write, and in many cases that deals with the various deities. But even beyond that, the fact that the deities as character grow and change over the course of novels and game supplements is, by definition, characterization - now, you can say that it's good or bad characterization, and you may not find the latter interesting, but it's a hard charge to make that even bad characterization is worse than none at all.



Why should I have to read the novels to get what I should be getting out of the sourcebooks? 



> And "none at all" is exactly how much characterization the Greyhawk gods have gotten...how interesting is it to have virtual non-entities for gods?



Actually it can afford quite a large amount of leeway. But sometimes these "virtual non-entities" contribute to the holistic appearance of a pantheon that grows and diminishes. Many real world pantheons contain a myriad of these "virtual non-entities," but there presence is more indicative of the people who worship said pantheon, their hierarchy of cultural values. Their prominence wades and fades or they suddenly enjoy a large boost in popularity. These "virtual non-entities" may even have small cults working in the background of a campaign, relegated to insignificance in the regular cultic activity of a people, but made far more relevant by how their cult moves the campaign forward, for good or for ill. 



> D&D deities aren't supposed to be "philosophical questions that remain thoroughly reelvant to modern life." They're supposed to be interesting parts of a game - and in that regard, the forgotten footnotes of a pantheon are neither interesting nor fun.



This is one approach to using deities in gaming. But I do not see how you could tout this as fact. Furthermore, for players of Greyhawk, these deities are interesting and fun, as they add another dimension to the life of the setting. 



> Compared with someone who freely admits he hasn't read the material? I may have been unaware of a _Dragon_ article about their origin, but I'm far and away more familiar than you are with what's been done with them since, and that's the more relevant aspect of what we're discussing.



Condescension will win you no allies and cost you a great loss of respect.


----------



## Alzrius (Aug 20, 2010)

Aldarc said:


> Most game worlds are static snapshots of a given time and place, and most deities in pantheons do not do that much in thirty years.




Well clearly that's not true, since FR hasn't been static, and their gods have done a lot in the last thirty years or so. Which is kind of my point.



> _It tells us that this deity is part of a living pantheon, in which her existence is tied into the existence of other deities. That makes it a real and organic pantheon as opposed to an artificial and synthetic pantheon. Real mythological pantheons demonstrate real human relationships. There are lineages. There are parental gods and rebellious children gods and all sorts of myths surrounding them. It makes the pantheon feel like an authentically real pantheon. _




No, it doesn't - characters feel real when they actually do things. Noting familial relationships, as opposed to all other sorts of relationships, as somehow being indicative of characterization and multiple facets is mistaken.

Giving saying that Berna is daughter of X, wife of Y, and mother of Z doesn't tell you how she relates to them, it doesn't establish any particular myths, and it doesn't create any particular sense of authenticity. It's just a notation.

Actions, insights of character, and changes over time create fully-fledged characters. Not a dry listing of a family tree.



> _I can read about the character outside of the novel itself. _




I wasn't talking to you in my previous post. And even if you can, reading the material instead of the CliffsNotes version is likely to serve you better.



> _Why should I have to read the novels to get what I should be getting out of the sourcebooks? _




You don't _have_ to read anything - I'm simply noting that novels are a good source of character development.



> _Actually it can afford quite a large amount of leeway. But sometimes these "virtual non-entities" contribute to the holistic appearance of a pantheon that grows and diminishes._




Grows and diminishes? What happened to them being a static snapshot?



> _Many real world pantheons contain a myriad of these "virtual non-entities," but there presence is more indicative of the people who worship said pantheon, their hierarchy of cultural values. Their prominence wades and fades or they suddenly enjoy a large boost in popularity. These "virtual non-entities" may even have small cults working in the background of a campaign, relegated to insignificance in the regular cultic activity of a people, but made far more relevant by how their cult moves the campaign forward, for good or for ill._




Yes, and we have better examples of all of this activity for the FR gods than the GH gods.

I'm not saying that's necessarily due to the strength of the deities themselves - there's no way to directly compare, but certainly having been in active development for years gives FR a big advantage there. However the result though, that is the result - Greyhawk's gods are given less coverage, and so are less developed as a consequence. Now, what's interesting or not is up to every individual, but I find characters more interesting when they have multiple dimensions to them. YMMV.

I want to make it clear, also, that I like the Greyhawk deities - I don't find them uninteresting; just less interesting than FR's gods, which have done things and changed across the years and editions. I wish the GH gods would get the same treatment - I'd love to have a sourcebook that details them to the extent that the FR gods got, or read some novels where they actually do things, and have their members grow, increase, and change. They just haven't gotten that, and it's a shame.



> _This is one approach to using deities in gaming. But I do not see how you could tout this as fact. Furthermore, for players of Greyhawk, these deities are interesting and fun, as they add another dimension to the life of the setting. _




The only thing I'm touting as being factual that's under contention is that Greyhawk had archetypal (which Celebrim called "one-dimensional") deities that could be reduced to "God of M-U's" "God of Fighters" etc. If you're going to say that about the FR gods, there's no way to deny that the GR deities are just as easily typified. 



> _Condescension will win you no allies and cost you a great loss of respect._




In which case, you should go back and edit your previous post.


----------



## Primal (Aug 21, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> Yeah, I think that's the size of it. What you see as misconceptions are I think, just different ways of looking at the same thing.




Usually I would agree with you there, but there seems to be a lot of prejudice and vitriol behind your opinions -- it's like at some point of time you decided to hate the setting, no matter what. I'm fine with people saying that they don't like FR because it's not their cup of tea; I just don't like when people claim that "Oh that setting is so broken because my DM uses Elminster all the time to humble us!" or "FR SUXXX 'cuz I don't like Drizzt" (not saying that you did say such a thing, but your points are somewhat colored by your obvious dislike).



> That, and much else of what you wrote, is known to me. I am aware that Ed can't be blamed for everything that was done with his setting; however, I am also aware that much of what is worst about the FR can be laid directly at his feet. Namely, modules like Haunted Halls of Eveningstar and the 'Avatar Trilogy', supplements like Seven Sisters and The Code of the Harpers, and the Eliminster novels cannot be blamed on anyone else and in fact are the very things he likes about the setting. In my opinion these rank as some of the worst products TSR ever published. So, yes, there is a matter of opinion here in that Ed's taste in a setting is definately not mine (or apparantly yours).
> 
> That's not to say that he's not a good or even excellent DM, and I think the Icewind Dale trilogy stands up as an excellent 'story hour' (if not necessarily novels), but I don't think nearly as much of him as a setting or rules smith and honestly I think that his era contributes greatly to the decline of D&D and overall quality of writing at TSR. I congradulate him on his success, but find it somewhat baffling. As a fellow DM, I'm sure he would have much to teach, and I wouldn't mind setting at his table, but I don't think I'd ever buy any of his products (again, once bitten...).




Really? I think his writing style and ideas are a great source of inspiration (I've even snatched whole pages from 'Cormyr: A Novel' for historical hand-outs) and I honestly feel my adventures would be far more linear and, well, boring without Ed. Reading the Grey Boxed Set or Undermountain were truly enlightening experiences for me. Not to mention that I find Volo's Guides to be amazing sourcebooks for worldbuilding. I readily admit that 'Seven Sisters' was a bit boring (likely another TSR-enforced supplement) and only a marginally useful product. However, CotH was another matter altogether --I found it to be an excellent book.  

You say that you're aware of what I wrote about Ed's role during the TSR era, and still you complain about his writing style and how he's to blame for X and Y; are you also aware that he did not invent (or, IIRC, even support) the whole ToT fiasco? Or that he only wrote parts of the 'Avatar Trilogy'? Or that his books were often modified (and even partly rewritten) by the editors, such as in the case of 'Spellfire'? And while we're speaking of the 'Haunted Halls of Eveningstar'... Ed submitted a full campaign book with 96 or so pages, but TSR felt it would have been a risk to print it; so they decided to cut it down to 32 pages (again, resulting in a less coherent book). Despite this I think it's still a well-written introductory module with more than enough details and maps to run a campaign in Eveningstar -- especially if you also have 'Volo's Guide to Cormyr'. 



> I like minutiae as much as the next guy, but I can't help but feel that things like the Volo Guides are - like for example most GURPS supplements - books that gamers like to read, rather than books gamers actually use at the game table.




Oh, I've used VGtC and VGtSC a lot, especially to add small details to local NPCs and shops, even "transplanting" them to different regions. And reading for inspiration is good for a DM, isn't it? 



> No, they aren't, and no they aren't. The needs of a real world religion differ dramatically from those of a game religion. If you look at real world religions, say the familiar Greek Olympians but any will do, you won't find gods of theives, magic, or even (typically) strength as being the most prominent members of the pantheon. In fact, the personifications or patrons of those things are typically very minor deities or else that role is a minor aspect of the dieties portfolio. In the real world - and for that matter fantasy worlds - most people aren't theives, fighters, or wizards. There concerns are for food, crops, seasons, money, sex, family, weather, leisure, the law and its proper establishment, and various trades necessary to the community and the pantheon will primaily feature patronage for those sorts of things. Central American pantheons often had like a half dozen corn deities. Real world dieties have complex portfolios. Hermes is the god of messangers, lawyers, and thieves and is invoked when people want to win a race. Diana is the goddess of the moon and virgins and hunting. But even that underestimates the complexity and misses the point, because real world polytheistic deities are generally about oral traditions concerning them and have hallmarks of that kind of conception. It's that that makes them sufficiently compelling to induce people to believe and worship them. The FR deities have no such hallmarks. They look like, read like, and essentially are game aids.




Well, color me confused... Alzrius alreadt dealt with this more eloquently than I could have, but let me add this: this *is* a RPG setting we're talking about, so I don't think we could ever reach the same depth in details about rituals, saints, customs, etcetera as RW religions do. We *are* talking about "game aids", right? Besides, I think there *has* to be middle-ground to how complex deities you're writing for a RPG setting (Harn, Rolemaster or RuneQuest are another matter, because they're pretty complex "simulationist" systems played by people who probably want more "realistic" religions); it's pretty tough for players and DMs alike to roleplay followers of such characters, especially if you're new to the hobby or, well, yet inexperienced in the ways of the world. Yet FR religions -- if Ed had had free reign over what to write and publish -- probably would be far more detailed and complex as they are; he's said a couple of times that TSR felt uncomfortable with publishing additional info on religious practises like rituals and worship habits. And that is likely why deity descriptions were kept pretty short until the three "Deity Books" came out.



> As a religion, the FR deities fall absolutely flat. They exist only to provide patrons for adventurers. So you have Mystra the goddess of M-U's, Meilikki the goddess of Rangers, Silvanus the god of Druids, Torm the god of Paladins, Mask the God of Theives, Helm the God of fighters, Oghma the God of Bards and so on and so forth. And (jokingly) you have Lathlander the God of Clerics. This is OotS sort of breaking of the fourth wall, and the thing is not only is it not meant to be funny, but OotS is actually more complex and mature in its conceptions despite being about breaking the 4th wall.




I tend to avoid strong expressions, but here you're just plain wrong. Azuth (not Mystra) is, indeed, the God of Wizards, but he's one of the rare gods who directly associate to a character class. Helm is actually the God of Guardians, Protection and Protectors (Tempus is the God of War, Battle and Warriors). And Torm, to use another example, is the Deity of Duty, Loyalty and Obedience (and yes, paladins, but that's a "secondary" portfolio for him as he does not automatically gain all paladins as followers). We could just as well mention Talos, who's the God of Storms, Destruction, Rebellion, Conflagrations, Earthshaking and Vortices. Selune, on the other hand, is the Goddess of Moon, Stars, Navigation, Navigators, Wanderers, Seekers and Good and Neutral Lycanthropes.

And pray tell me how Greyhawk or Eberron deities, for example, are so much more complex or interesting -- especially as most FR deities have pretty much direct analogies in the Greyhawk Pantheon? Isn't Olidammara the God of Bards? Kurell the Deity of Thieves? Kord the God of Strength, War and Warriors? Nerull the Deity of Death and Undead? And if you ask me, how is Pelor (the "default" god in core 3E and 4E, by the way) any different from Lathander as a Sun Deity? If anything, I think Lathander (God of Spring, Dawn, Birth, Renewal, Creativity, Youth, Vitality, Self-Perfection and Athletics) as part of the "Tripartite Sun" (Amaunator-Myrkul-Lathander) is a more novel idea than a pretty run-of-the-mill Sun God.

The thing is, this is a fantasy RPG setting; *of course* Deities of War, Death, Magic, Thieves, Sun etcetera play a big role in it -- and in large part because those deities are more or less likely to play a more prominent part in the lives of adventurers. But there are still Deities of Hunting (several deities in fact), Acriculture, Sex, Community, Commerce, Seas, Crafts (and so on) who are worshipped by the common folk.  



> The thing is, you can't blame me for this perception. This is how the dieties were described in their first introduction and they are largely still described in those terms. Some complications arose as they were detailed to a greater degree, but there obvious first inspiration is as class patrons. Anything else about them was added on tangentally to their primary role, rather than figuring out from the primary role what mercenary trades might esteem the deity. You have to get way out into the fringes of the pantheon to even find dieties that remotely seem to be archetypes and which makes some sense as dieties. The pantheon is almost entirely backwards. What makes this particularly bad is that many of the dieties are just directly stolen from the 1st edition Deities and Demigods (Finnish, Celtic, and Greek pantheons particularly) and generally have about as much depth not as the real world deity, but of that books monster entry.




True, but apart from a handful of them the original source may not be that transparent (and MOST of the RW deities were shoehorned into FR by TSR). Besides, how many truly original goddesses of love or war have you seen in RPGs? Again, I can surely roleplay and improvise ritual practises and daily chores for, say, a God of Darkness and Death, but I'd be completely lost with something like God of Raindrops and Moisture or Goddess of Midwives, Birth, and Infants. 



> I adventured with a Paladin of the original Mystra (DM ruled that Paladins could chose a patron up to one step removed from LG) for like 4 real life years. This isn't misconceptions. This is different perceptions of the same thing. If you want to see what I like and admire in an invented polytheist pantheon read 'The Book of the Righteous' or in literature Bujold's 'Curse of Chalion'. Those excellently conceived dieties I can imagine people piously worshiping. The Greyhawk pantheon(s) are also much better concieved than the FR.




You know, I loved 'Curse of Chalion', but I tend to think it did not portray religion in a particularly innovative way. And I prefer deities to have a "real" name (preferably even several names and aspects) over 'The Mother' or 'The Bastard'.



> His role in modules and Ed's obvious attachment and even self-identification with the wizard argues against that assessment. Many of the early FR modules are strict railroads where you watch more important characters than you do thier thing while you are essentially unable to alter the outcome. They feature text walls not merely of descriptions, but of events you are to witness.




Ed has repeatedly said that Elminster is not his alter ego; and you yourself noted that you're aware that TSR -- not Ed -- chose Elminster as the "figurehead" for the Realms.

Which adventures are you referring to? Because those written by Ed tended to be pretty open-ended dungeon crawls. If you're referring to the Avatar Series, I don't think Ed would have written them at all, if he had had a choice.  



> There are two problems there (at least). First of all, this isn't 'fantasy fiction' we are talking about. This is gaming material. Gaming material has different standards than generic literature or novels because its meant to be related to in a different way. And second of all, the FR model was not the norm in gaming material. It marked different to see 30th level characters who had divine gifts that separated them from mere mortals being not only the foils of the party that they were meant to overcome (because no one else could) but the actual movers and shakers among the forces of good. Compare with for example Greyhawk, where most of the big names were in effect actual player characters (or their enemies). For FR, you could basically say that only of Drizzt.




Well, you *did* chastise me for pointing out that we're talking about gaming material and not RW issues. 

Anyway, you don't need to preach to the choir; I've said multiple times on this board that D&D (and de facto RPGs in general) don't model fiction very well. However, fantasy RPGs are based on and inspired by -- along with other types of oral and written tradition -- fantasy fiction. And fantasy has certain tropes and cliches that it is associated with; for example, a player understands that a high magic world probably has lots of powerful wizards and magical items. If it doesn't, he might feel that the world is inconsistent with the traits and the image related to high/epic fantasy. Even though the standards are a bit different from fiction, fantasy RPGs (and the settings) are still "enslaved" by the genre. I also don't see any problem with Greyhawk having only a few high-level NPCs and lots of mid-level NPCs; it's a bit grittier than FR, and set between low and high fantasy (closer to high fantasy, though). FR is another beast; it *did* feature far less archmages (and other high level NPCs) originally, but I guess TSR wanted to radically distinguish it from Greyhawk (and yet I think my original point about 'high level characters vs. low level threats' still stands).

Look, I'm a librarian specialized in speculative fiction (and I also dealt with the relationship between literature and RPGs in my thesis), so you don't need to lecture me on this subject. 

BTW, quite many FR NPCs were originally PCs; for example, all of the Knights of Myth Drannor and The Company of the Crazed Venturers. Drizzt, however, was never a PC (Salvatore invented him for the Dark Elf series).



> Then you didn't actually play much published FR material either.




Oh, but I did; I've romped through Undermountain several times, and apart from the awful Marco Volo series and the 3E era adventures, I think we've played every published FR adventure. Furthermore, I think we (my group) own almost every FR product released before year 2000.



> I'm aware of what probably was the initial compelling reason behind it. You act like we DMs haven't all experienced that. But not all of us felt compelled to adopt an Ultima style model where the shop keepers and gaurds were some of the most powerful monsters in the game. There are other approaches than "Pretty soon my games, too, featured several 10-15 level retired adventurers even in the smallest backwoods hamlets."




Oh, certainly; I think this is a case when something was lost in translation (English is not my native language). I didn't mean to imply that this problem would have been "unique" to my or Ed's campaigns; rather, I wanted to emphasize that I can relate to the problem. Anyway, I know it wasn't probably the best possible approach; however, I felt that my hands were more or less tied and I was too young to try a more diplomatic or reasonable solution (such as discussing it with the players).


----------



## Swedish Chef (Aug 21, 2010)

I was thinking on my way home about some of the points brought up by many here, and I'd like to touch on them a bit.

Some have mentioned that they don't like all the "Good" or "Evil" organizations that seem to be all over the place. They feel there are just too many of said organizations for the PCs to have any real effect on the game.

Well, I posit this to you: I live near Toronto, in the Province of Ontario, in the country of Canada. Let's parallel that to the city of Suzail in the country of Cormyr.

Toronto has a police force. Suzail has the Town Guard. The province of Ontario has the Ontario Provincial Police. Suzail is not part of a province (if it is, I don't know the name), so does not have an analogous force. Canada has the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Cormyr has the Purple Knights. Canada also has the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. Cormyr has some Harpers, and whatever spies employed by the King. 

Add to that the various local, provincial and federal governmental agencies created specifically to aid certain individuals (welfare, charities, homeless, jobless, etc, etc, etc) and you have quite a number of forces of "good" in my little corner of the world. And that doesn't even include the various groups that aid others that are founded by individuals. Cormyr and Faerun has several other organizations made up of good individuals.

Now, just like in the real world, many of these organizations do not share information, resources or anything else. Many of them are striving towards the same or similar goals, yet may wind up working against each other to make use of the limited resources available.

Now let's look at the Evil side of things. There are somewhere along the lines of 30-40 active gangs in the city of Toronto, distributing drugs, running prostitution and fighting over territory. Add to that the larger gangs from the US that are making headway up here for drugs and weapons, including the Bloods, Crips, Hell's Angels and others. Then there are the Jamaican and South American gangs, and some gangs from China, Vietnam and Japan. And let's not forget the Mafia. It gets to the point that the various law enforcement agencies have small groups focused on individual gangs just to keep themselves from being overwhelmed by the sheer weight of it all.

So, personally, I don't have an issue with all the different forces of Good and Evil in the Realms. Why hasn't any one of them wiped out the other side? For the same reason that it doesn't happen in the real world - not enough resources, man power, etc to get the job done. Most days you're just happy for the stalemate. Sure, one group may temporarily gain some advantage over one or more on the other side, but invariably something happens (temporary alliances, weird acts of luck, etc) that knocks that group back into an even playing field, so to speak.

Now, let's look at the "Realms Shattering Events". Let's face it, the big ones all ushered in the new rules for the gaming system. That is not a fault of the setting. Greyhawk had the Greyhawk Wars, and the end of 2ed saw "Die, Vecna, Die", the "Apocalypse Stone" and one other "end of the world as we know it"  module that was designed to allow DMs to rebuild their version of Greyhawk under the new ruleset. Yet, for some reason, although fans hate those individual modules (or boxed set, as for the Wars), the whole setting has not been tainted by them.

I won't comment on the deities, as there is already quite the back and forth subthread going on here about that already.

The final point I guess I would make would be about the fiction. I agree, I don't like how the fiction has become canon, for the most part. However, I don't have an issue with the characters in the fiction being "uber powerful" for two reasons.

1) The hero in fantasy fiction is supposed to be above all others. Conan kicked everyone's ass. Bilbo successfully steals from the baddest dragon in Middle Earth. Luke defeats the Emperor. That's why we like heroes - they do what no one else can. As has been stated by others, this rarely translates well into actual game mechanics.
2) Most of the fiction put out for the game is analogous to Harlequin romance for women. It's trite, not very well written, and tends to follow a template. Ex. Create hero with strange background or emotional flaw. Introduce hero to various "sidekicks" to flesh out the party. One should be for comedy, one should be dark and brooding but with a golden heart. Maybe throw in a love interest, and possibly someone who will betray the group later, becoming the BBEG or BBEG JR. Have some nasty event occur that requires the group to travel great distances to find some lost artifact that will save the world, battling various monsters along the way. Find artifact, possibly losing a party member in a poignant way. Party nearly fractures, but rediscovers loyalty and unity in time to defeat BBEG and save the world.

Basically, if gamers didn't buy the fiction, WotC wouldn't produce it. Again, don't blame the setting for this, blame the marketing department and the hacks that write it.

Well, I think I've bored you long enough with my wandering diatribe. To sum things up - I like the Realms, I respect others who don't, but I don't think I'll ever understand those that hate the Realms. Not that there's anything wrong with that.


----------



## Aldarc (Aug 21, 2010)

Alzrius said:


> Well clearly that's not true, since FR hasn't been static, and their gods have done a lot in the last thirty years or so. Which is kind of my point.



Most.  



> No, it doesn't - characters feel real when they actually do things. Noting familial relationships, as opposed to all other sorts of relationships, as somehow being indicative of characterization and multiple facets is mistaken.
> 
> Giving saying that Berna is daughter of X, wife of Y, and mother of Z doesn't tell you how she relates to them, it doesn't establish any particular myths, and it doesn't create any particular sense of authenticity. It's just a notation.
> 
> Actions, insights of character, and changes over time create fully-fledged characters. Not a dry listing of a family tree.



I cannot attest as to whether there is more or less to that description of the Greyhawk deity so there may be more. While you may think that this notation is insignificant, the vast weight of religious writings of pantheons runs contra to your assertion. The notations of lineages are _highly_ important to religions. Looking through the important religious texts and myths of ancient societies reveals their importance. The Babylonian Enuma Elish and Hesiod's Theogeny contains an important stress on how the gods were born and the relations they developed with other gods. While modern audiences may find the "Begots" boring in the various portions of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament, they show the pre-modern prominence of family lineage. The FR pantheon lacks this vital element that makes it feel like an actual pantheon rather than an odd collection of variously assembled deities. 

You are right, "saying that Berna is daughter of X, wife of Y, and mother of Z doesn't tell you how she relates to them, it doesn't establish any particular myths, and it doesn't create any particular sense of authenticity. It's just a notation." But the notation is just that, a notation that suggests a larger, living mythological framework behind the notation within the religious life. And these myths should be where the character development of the gods take place and not so much the present. The character development of the present is for the heroes, the players. 



> I wasn't talking to you in my previous post. And even if you can, reading the material instead of the CliffsNotes version is likely to serve you better.



That would be true if our focus was on literature, but not on a gaming world setting. A gaming world should not require novels to create a developed world or pantheon. These should be present in the setting from the get-go. A god's character development should not be from Year X of the game world launch to the present, but from Year 0 of the game world to the Year X of the game world launch. 



> You don't _have_ to read anything - I'm simply noting that novels are a good source of character development.



Novels of questionable worth. They are a potential source of good development, but most fantasy novels - and especially those written for D&D - are abysmal failures of character development. 



> Grows and diminishes? What happened to them being a static snapshot?



Nothing, as these are not contradictory ideas. The campaign setting is a static snapshot of a particular time and place within a world of history. A monarch or tribal lord may raise an insignificant minor god to greater prominence and thereby slowly replace the central veneration of the previous high god. For example, Tyr was likely the high god of the Norse pantheon before gradually being dwarfed in prominence by Odin. 



> Yes, and we have better examples of all of this activity for the FR gods than the GH gods.



Not really, as they again feel haphazardly slapped onto the pantheon rather than a natural outgrowth of a particular culture's change in values. 



> I'm not saying that's necessarily due to the strength of the deities themselves - there's no way to directly compare, but certainly having been in active development for years gives FR a big advantage there. However the result though, that is the result - Greyhawk's gods are given less coverage, and so are less developed as a consequence. Now, what's interesting or not is up to every individual, but I find characters more interesting when they have multiple dimensions to them. YMMV.



Less coverage and exposure != less developed. This cannot be emphasized enough. Deities in FR barely seem to have time to develop as they are constantly shuffled around, killed off, or some new upstart mortal in a novel ascends to godhood. They do not seem to have any mythologies to their name. I am not here to talk about what they do in Greyhawk. That is a red herring for me. I am here to talk about the problem with the FR pantheon. 



> I want to make it clear, also, that I like the Greyhawk deities - I don't find them uninteresting; just less interesting than FR's gods, which have done things and changed across the years and editions. I wish the GH gods would get the same treatment - I'd love to have a sourcebook that details them to the extent that the FR gods got, or read some novels where they actually do things, and have their members grow, increase, and change. They just haven't gotten that, and it's a shame.



I do not know much about Greyhawk. It is before my time. But I was under the impression that it does change over time, just not drastically every time a new novel or updated game system comes out. I would not expect deities to do that much in the span of thirty-years or for pantheons to be repeatedly shaken up so much in such a (relatively) short amount of time. This mercurial make-up of the FR pantheon frustrates me about the setting. I do not want these pantheon developments in novels that become required reading. 



> The only thing I'm touting as being factual that's under contention is that Greyhawk had archetypal (which Celebrim called "one-dimensional") deities that could be reduced to "God of M-U's" "God of Fighters" etc. If you're going to say that about the FR gods, there's no way to deny that the GR deities are just as easily typified.



You clearly are supporting a particular use of deities in games above all others, namely that "[D&D deities are] supposed to be interesting parts of a game - and in that regard, the forgotten footnotes of a pantheon are neither interesting nor fun." 



> In which case, you should go back and edit your previous post.



I do not see what good editing my posts would do for rectifying your condescension. 



Primal said:


> Well, color me confused... Alzrius alreadt dealt with this more eloquently than I could have, but let me add this: this *is* a RPG setting we're talking about, so I don't think we could ever reach the same depth in details about rituals, saints, customs, etcetera as RW religions do. We *are* talking about "game aids", right? Besides, I think there *has* to be middle-ground to how complex deities you're writing for a RPG setting (Harn, Rolemaster or RuneQuest are another matter, because they're pretty complex "simulationist" systems played by people who probably want more "realistic" religions); it's pretty tough for players and DMs alike to roleplay followers of such characters, especially if you're new to the hobby or, well, yet inexperienced in the ways of the world.



If you need an ideal model for creating a living pantheon, I would whole-heartily recommend the Book of the Righteous. 



> Yet FR religions -- if Ed had had free reign over what to write and publish -- probably would be far more detailed and complex as they are; he's said a couple of times that TSR felt uncomfortable with publishing additional info on religious practises like rituals and worship habits. And that is likely why deity descriptions were kept pretty short until the three "Deity Books" came out.



But talking about what could have been in this case or that is a fruitless exercise, as we are talking about what _is_.


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Aug 21, 2010)

yeah that does it, what really bugs me is the flipping double-be-damned, stupid *TIME OF TROUBLES!!*

great setting, screwed over by a stupid need to match 1st to 2nd ed AD&D...WHY?!?! _WHY!???!_ 
did they invent a new dice for 2nd ed or something that would TOTALLY SNAFU everything up without re-doign the Entire world? 2nd ed didn't hit us with ninja-kobolds, ya know.
_"The official TSR D-THAC0 dice needs a nuclear apocalypse to be comaptible with YOUR world!", _hm?







and they did it AGAIN!! 3rd to 4th all the spellcasters got a Staff of the Magi shoved up their Ring of Wizardry and exploded for 20d6 force and spicy curry damage!

I mean throw me a frikkin' bone here, stop doing this ot the damn casters! make the _fighter's_ swords turn into...oh, I dunno..."_man-thingies_ of Cythonic Doom" like Japanese comics do, instead of always blaming the damn finger-wrigglers for catastophies.
So instead of the Spellplague we could have the..._"Swordwangplague_",eh?!






and then, worst of ALL, they get rid of three awesomely badass gods and put in place a complete TOSS POT nincomppoop!!  and he goes and causes the Spellplague and like exactly how the hell did he manage to kill Mystra when he was an cowardly insane INCPOMPETANT NOTHING in his mortal life, hm? Cyric is the only perosn in the entire Realms who could lose an ass-kicking competition with a BEHOLDER, for crying out loud.

plenty of great NPCs could have taken Myrkhuul, Bane and Bhaal's portoflios, but oh no, they give to the Ricki Gervais of deities, WHY?!?!?
_"Oh I am the Dark Sun!! I even pinch other folks CAMPAIGN names 'cause I am such a talentless looooser!"_



BAH! HUMBUG!!


----------



## Philosopher (Aug 21, 2010)

Aldarc said:


> I cannot attest as to whether there is more or less to that description of the Greyhawk deity so there may be more. While you may think that this notation is insignificant, the vast weight of religious writings of pantheons runs contra to your assertion. The notations of lineages are _highly_ important to religions. Looking through the important religious texts and myths of ancient societies reveals their importance. The Babylonian Enuma Elish and Hesiod's Theogeny contains an important stress on how the gods were born and the relations they developed with other gods. While modern audiences may find the "Begots" boring in the various portions of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament, they show the pre-modern prominence of family lineage. The FR pantheon lacks this vital element that makes it feel like an actual pantheon rather than an odd collection of variously assembled deities.




I don't understand why people keep coming back to this idea that deities should have familial relations in order to be fleshed out. Yes, these relations had much significance for real world religions. But step back for a moment. The deities described in these religions are not real. They were inventions (if not conscious ones). _Of course_ they're going to reflect the needs and interests of tribal societies (which, among other things, cared about familial relations). But why would the deities of the Realms, who are not supposed to be the inventions of mortals, reflect the same interests? Sure, the deities, if they're reliant on worshippers, have to serve their worshippers in some capacity, but their _relationships_ are completely separate from that.

One mistake lots of DMs make (and I think this is an issue with the vast amounts of material published about the Realms) is in assuming that the players will care about all the details he puts into his setting. Do you really think that most players will _care_ about which deities are related to which deities? How does that make my _game_ any better? There are better things to focus on if you want your fantasy belief systems to come to life around the table. The assumption that the beings who direct the cosmos have the same day-to-day dramas that we do is so _provincial_.

(Having said that, I've never been impressed with the FR deities as directors of the cosmos. They come across as incredibly petty. Dragonlance has largely the same problem. This post isn't so much a defense of the FR deities as it is a criticism of the criteria being used by others to criticize the FR deities.)


----------



## Alzrius (Aug 21, 2010)

Aldarc said:


> I cannot attest as to whether there is more or less to that description of the Greyhawk deity so there may be more. While you may think that this notation is insignificant, the vast weight of religious writings of pantheons runs contra to your assertion. The notations of lineages are _highly_ important to religions. Looking through the important religious texts and myths of ancient societies reveals their importance. The Babylonian Enuma Elish and Hesiod's Theogeny contains an important stress on how the gods were born and the relations they developed with other gods. While modern audiences may find the "Begots" boring in the various portions of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament, they show the pre-modern prominence of family lineage. The FR pantheon lacks this vital element that makes it feel like an actual pantheon rather than an odd collection of variously assembled deities.




This is the exact same missing-the-point assertion that Celebrim made - in fact, it's so similar that it makes me wonder if you're him under a different username.

The point you're making is regarding real-world religions, and as such is wholly inapplicable here. The things that were important to ancient real-world religions are as important to a fantasy pantheon as real-world blacksmithing techniques are to fantasy combat.

Saying that GH deities are more multifaceted because they note who's related to who is, to me, one of those areas where a qualitative judgment sits on the border of moving from a matter of opinion to one of fact. Such a small series of references is, unto itself, utterly without meaning.

Does it completely escape you that the pantheons you refer to are remembered for the stories about the gods themselves, and not just for their relationships? While their relatives may have been starting points for their myths, it was the myths about the deeds of the deities themselves that made them so well-remembered. The gods of Greyhawk have the relationships but not the deeds, the gods of the Forgotten Realms have the deeds, and while they may not have familial relationships, they do have working ones.

To me, that makes it clear which pantheon has more multifaceted characters.



> _You are right, "saying that Berna is daughter of X, wife of Y, and mother of Z doesn't tell you how she relates to them, it doesn't establish any particular myths, and it doesn't create any particular sense of authenticity. It's just a notation." But the notation is just that, a notation that suggests a larger, living mythological framework behind the notation within the religious life. And these myths should be where the character development of the gods take place and not so much the present. The character development of the present is for the heroes, the players. _




I heartily disagree - firstly because ANY such notation, in regards to anything, carries the connotations you're describing. Secondly, because saying that "these myths should be where the character development of the gods take place and not so much the present" means that you're saying that any recent and/or overt actions that gods take is automatically lesser than unspecified, ancient actions that _may or may not_ have been undertaken.

In other words, you find the implications of two sentences saying that Berna's a wife, mother, and daughter to someone tell you more about her than a page describing Cyric's relationships with Mystra, Kelemvor, Mask, Leira, and others (to say nothing of a novel wherein we see those relationships in action).

That's taking "less is more" to an extreme.



> _That would be true if our focus was on literature, but not on a gaming world setting. A gaming world should not require novels to create a developed world or pantheon. _




Novels are part of a fantasy world's setting. They're not necessary to gaming in it, certainly, but they are a part of it - and thus relevant to the focus of what we're talking about.



> _These should be present in the setting from the get-go. A god's character development should not be from Year X of the game world launch to the present, but from Year 0 of the game world to the Year X of the game world launch. _




So in other words, you actively don't want the deities to change or grow over the life of a setting, not be more deeply explored and fleshed out in supplements released later.

Wow do I disagree with that. I like it when new things happen - either the characters evolve, or we're simply told/shown more about them. Three paragraphs about a deity isn't enough, in my opinion.



> _Novels of questionable worth. They are a potential source of good development, but most fantasy novels - and especially those written for D&D - are abysmal failures of character development. _




That's you're opinion; you may have noticed that other people don't share it. And even overlooking that point, I'd venture that even character development that you don't care for is still development at all. I don't like Elminster, but at least I have a good idea of who he is as a character.



> _Nothing, as these are not contradictory ideas. The campaign setting is a static snapshot of a particular time and place within a world of history. A monarch or tribal lord may raise an insignificant minor god to greater prominence and thereby slowly replace the central veneration of the previous high god. For example, Tyr was likely the high god of the Norse pantheon before gradually being dwarfed in prominence by Odin. _




The difference is that you want the appearance of a pantheon that grows and diminishes - I want it to actually do that.

Or, at least, tell us more about its constituent members in the meantime.



> _Not really, as they again feel haphazardly slapped onto the pantheon rather than a natural outgrowth of a particular culture's change in values. _




Not really, as they're the result of the gods being their own individuals rather than just slowly and gradually changing in response to their culture's change in values.



> _Less coverage and exposure != less developed. This cannot be emphasized enough._




But, no coverage and exposure = no possibility for development.

I'll admit that in some cases, a truly superb but concise piece of material can still be better than a much longer one of lesser quality.

That, however, is most definitely not the case in regards to the GH deities vs. the FR deities.



> _Deities in FR barely seem to have time to develop as they are constantly shuffled around, killed off, or some new upstart mortal in a novel ascends to godhood. They do not seem to have any mythologies to their name. I am not here to talk about what they do in Greyhawk. That is a red herring for me. I am here to talk about the problem with the FR pantheon. _




It's a bit late for you to be say you don't care to talk about Greyhawk as exemplifying the traits you like, as you've already made that point multiple times.

Even saying that, it's still a useful point of comparison - the GH deities have no such mythologies either; you're simply interpreting their interpersonal relationships to be suggestive of the mythologies you'd like to see, despite them not having actually been written.

And the fact that the FR gods are constantly in a state of flux showcases their dynamic nature, which naturally begets development. The lack of a mythology seems inconsequential when they're actually doing things _now_.



> _I do not know much about Greyhawk. It is before my time. But I was under the impression that it does change over time, just not drastically every time a new novel or updated game system comes out. I would not expect deities to do that much in the span of thirty-years or for pantheons to be repeatedly shaken up so much in such a (relatively) short amount of time. This mercurial make-up of the FR pantheon frustrates me about the setting. I do not want these pantheon developments in novels that become required reading. _




It bears repeating that novels - or, for that matter, game materials that change things - aren't the only way to establish development for gods as characters. You can just as easily do that with an expansive article/book about the gods as they are now. That's why the Faiths & Avatars books are so lauded. They establish the gods very well, as they exist at that time.



> _You clearly are supporting a particular use of deities in games above all others, namely that "[D&D deities are] supposed to be interesting parts of a game - and in that regard, the forgotten footnotes of a pantheon are neither interesting nor fun." _




I'm saying that less is not more; more is more. You don't seem to think so.



> _I do not see what good editing my posts would do for rectifying your condescension. _




I have no condescension to rectify; the same cannot be said for you.


----------



## Aldarc (Aug 21, 2010)

Philosopher said:


> I don't understand why people keep coming back to this idea that deities should have familial relations in order to be fleshed out. Yes, these relations had much significance for real world religions. But step back for a moment. The deities described in these religions are not real. They were inventions (if not conscious ones). _Of course_ they're going to reflect the needs and interests of tribal societies (which, among other things, cared about familial relations). But why would the deities of the Realms, who are not supposed to be the inventions of mortals, reflect the same interests? Sure, the deities, if they're reliant on worshippers, have to serve their worshippers in some capacity, but their _relationships_ are completely separate from that.



Because the deities of the Forgotten Realms were also crafted by as much of an imagination as possessed by our ancient ancestors who saw the gods as being as just as real as the gods of the Realms. 



> One mistake lots of DMs make (and I think this is an issue with the vast amounts of material published about the Realms) is in assuming that the players will care about all the details he puts into his setting. Do you really think that most players will _care_ about which deities are related to which deities? How does that make my _game_ any better? There are better things to focus on if you want your fantasy belief systems to come to life around the table. The assumption that the beings who direct the cosmos have the same day-to-day dramas that we do is so _provincial_.



When gods war and play against each other, those relationships matter. Will these details be used? Not always, but they are there for when they are relevant, namely in how it affects the clergy and lay person. 



Alzrius said:


> This is the exact same missing-the-point assertion that Celebrim made - in fact, it's so similar that it makes me wonder if you're him under a different username.



What kind of cheap rhetorical baiting is this? This is not only completely unnecessary, but also an unwarranted insult to both Celebrim and me. What purpose could this possibly serve? 



> The point you're making is regarding real-world religions, and as such is wholly inapplicable here. The things that were important to ancient real-world religions are as important to a fantasy pantheon as real-world blacksmithing techniques are to fantasy combat.



I do not believe that is true, as the perception for the ancient people was a world in which the gods were entirely active in the world and their lives. 



> Saying that GH deities are more multifaceted because they note who's related to who is, to me, one of those areas where a qualitative judgment sits on the border of moving from a matter of opinion to one of fact. Such a small series of references is, unto itself, utterly without meaning.



It is a touch of verisimilitude of real life religions that adds an extra dimension to pantheons. It makes it feel real to me and not randomly assembled. To say then that I do not like this absent quality of the FR pantheon is not unreasonable. For if it is, as you say, absent in FR then I am within my rights to dislike this aspect of FR. The pantheon does not feel real to me. While it feels real enough for you to suffice, it feels wholly artificial and lackluster to me. 



> Does it completely escape you that the pantheons you refer to are remembered for the stories about the gods themselves, and not just for their relationships? While their relatives may have been starting points for their myths, it was the myths about the deeds of the deities themselves that made them so well-remembered. The gods of Greyhawk have the relationships but not the deeds, the gods of the Forgotten Realms have the deeds, and while they may not have familial relationships, they do have working ones.
> 
> To me, that makes it clear which pantheon has more multifaceted characters.



It does not escape me, but then again, I am not arguing for one or the other, but for the presence of both. That makes it clear that I do not particularly care for either pantheon. 



> I heartily disagree - firstly because ANY such notation, in regards to anything, carries the connotations you're describing. Secondly, because saying that "these myths should be where the character development of the gods take place and not so much the present" means that you're saying that any recent and/or overt actions that gods take is automatically lesser than unspecified, ancient actions that _may or may not_ have been undertaken.



I am not entirely sure what connotations you are referring. I am not suggesting anywhere that "any recent and/or overt actions that gods take is automatically lesser than unspecified, ancient actions that _may or may not_ have been undertaken." I am saying that character development is not rooted directly in the life of a setting, but rooted in the chronology of the setting itself. 

But to clarify, I will correct myself by saying that these myths should be where the _majority_ of character development of the gods should take place. The present acts as a fulcrum of character development for many gods in campaign worlds. Players may be privy to glimpses that the otherwise good god of hugs and kisses is becoming corrupt through the questionable actions of the deity and his clergy. This is a sort character development that does not require that the entire pantheon be re-written from top to bottom just because a game-setting novelist sneezes. 



> In other words, you find the implications of two sentences saying that Berna's a wife, mother, and daughter to someone tell you more about her than a page describing Cyric's relationships with Mystra, Kelemvor, Mask, Leira, and others (to say nothing of a novel wherein we see those relationships in action).
> 
> That's taking "less is more" to an extreme.



In other words, you are putting words into my mouth and misconstruing my argument. And I do not appreciate it. 



> Novels are part of a fantasy world's setting. They're not necessary to gaming in it, certainly, but they are a part of it - and thus relevant to the focus of what we're talking about.



When novels drag the game setting by the collar, they become necessary. When people have to read the novels to make out heads-or-tails of what is going on in their gaming setting, they become necessary. The DM is at the mercy of the novels (a similar problem that plagued Dark Sun and Dragonlance). But the novels should not be necessary for the character development of the pantheon. These should be primarily in the deity supplements. 



> So in other words, you actively don't want the deities to change or grow over the life of a setting, not be more deeply explored and fleshed out in supplements released later.



What a loaded question. I also do not want you to put words in my mouth or to misleadingly frame my arguments. Deities can be "more deeply explored and fleshed out in supplements released later" without the deities actively changing or growing "over the life of a setting." These deities may have changed and grown over the timeline of the setting. 



> Wow do I disagree with that. I like it when new things happen - either the characters evolve, or we're simply told/shown more about them. Three paragraphs about a deity isn't enough, in my opinion.



Gods can do new things, but I prefer that these things are either behind the scenes or less overt in the world. What you described is the focus of what I want for the players and heroes, but not the gods. 



> *That's you're opinion; you may have noticed that other people don't share it.* And even overlooking that point, I'd venture that even character development that you don't care for is still development at all. I don't like Elminster, but at least I have a good idea of who he is as a character.



So why do you act as if only your opinion regarding the worth of FR is valid? People are clearly expressing their opinions regarding aspects they dislike about FR. Philosopher made a healthy distinction between opinions. 



> The difference is that you want the appearance of a pantheon that grows and diminishes - I want it to actually do that.
> 
> Or, at least, tell us more about its constituent members in the meantime.



Then you can have it, but do not disparage me when that detracts from the setting. The primary problem for me, and others have aired similar opinions in this thread, is not that the pantheon grows and diminishes, but of how rapidly it does so. It does not just grow and diminish; it practically becomes a different pantheon entirely over the course of a few decades. It is a wonder that people worship gods at all when they come flavored as "God of the Month Club." There is little time for character growth when they come and go as the tides. Growing and diminishing pantheons does not equate to character development. This is just another form of notation and book-keeping. 



> Not really, as they're the result of the gods being their own individuals rather than just slowly and gradually changing in response to their culture's change in values.



Of course, but for me the perception remains the same. The pantheon looks haphazardly assembled. Even individuals have family relationships and lineages. These are not contradictory ideas. 



> But, no coverage and exposure = no possibility for development.
> 
> I'll admit that in some cases, a truly superb but concise piece of material can still be better than a much longer one of lesser quality.
> 
> That, however, is most definitely not the case in regards to the GH deities vs. the FR deities.



Well thank goodness then that I do not care about GH deities vs. the FR deities, but simply what I dislike about the FR pantheon. But I will say that "no coverage and exposure" could just as easily mean, "privy to the interpretive freedom of the DM." I honestly do not expect all deities to receive equal doses of character development. This certainly holds true in the history of religions. 

(Also, at my own piqued interest, it turns out that Berna has more of a description than simply what Celebrim posted. She even has several myths surrounding her.) 



> It's a bit late for you to be say you don't care to talk about Greyhawk as exemplifying the traits you like, as you've already made that point multiple times.
> 
> Even saying that, it's still a useful point of comparison - *the GH deities have no such mythologies either*; you're simply interpreting their interpersonal relationships to be suggestive of the mythologies you'd like to see, despite them not having actually been written.



As I told you, in my text that you quoted no less, this is a red herring. I do not care about Greyhawk. Talking about how this is insufficient in Greyhawk is utterly beside the point. I did not say that I liked Greyhawk. I did not say that Greyhawk exemplified the traits that I like either. Book of the Righteous exemplifies traits that I like in more active pantheons. The Sovereign Host exemplifies traits that I like in more ambiguously-existing pantheons. And the Diamond Throne and Dark Sun exemplify traits of pantheons that I like in most of my settings: remote or dead, but either way inconsequential. 



> And the fact that the FR gods are constantly in a state of flux showcases their dynamic nature, which naturally begets development. The lack of a mythology seems inconsequential when they're actually doing things _now_.
> 
> It bears repeating that novels - or, for that matter, game materials that change things - aren't the only way to establish development for gods as characters. You can just as easily do that with an expansive article/book about the gods as they are now. That's why the Faiths & Avatars books are so lauded. They establish the gods very well, as they exist at that time.



I quite agree with the last paragraph, but my vexation is primarily with the mercurial composition of the pantheon. It leaves little room, in my esteem, for developing those gods over time or in the present. The changes do not seem to be the result of character growth or development, but by the whims of the developers and the system. A constant state of flux of the deities does not naturally beget character development. This is an absolutely fallacious assertion. The lack of mythology is unreasonable considering the enormous length of the timeline. 



> I'm saying that less is not more; more is more. You don't seem to think so.



More is quantitative, but more is not always qualitatively better. 



> I have no condescension to rectify; the same cannot be said for you.



I was not the one that boldly flaunted in a patronizing manner that I know more than someone else about a particular subject. That per the definition is condescension. 

Now I have explained aspects regarding Forgotten Realms that I personally dislike. These are opinions which I hold and do not necessarily expect others, like yourself and other FR apologetics in this thread, to equally hold as true. So why, Alzrius, do you take all of this so personally? Are people not allowed to dislike the Forgotten Realms?


----------



## the Jester (Aug 21, 2010)

Since everyone is getting all riled up about the divine family concept and whether it is important or adds anything to the pantheon, I thought I'd throw in my 2 coppers worth.

Since I don't have any GH stuff handy and I haven't used it as my campaign in around 15 years, I don't really remember who is related to who so well, so I'm not going to be able to throw out GH-specific examples, but just noting that god A is the father of god B and god C actually _does_ suggest a lot- given the other information you have. 

Generally, you'll know the deity's status (greater, intermediate, lesser, demi-); alignment; and portfolio, at a minimum.

If you look at these in the context of familial relationships they can often be quite suggestive. They can really flesh out the relationship between those deities, which naturally fleshes out the way their priesthoods interact. That's the thing about details like this: even if the pcs don't care about them, they can still have an in-game effect. Plot hooks hang thick from the divine families.

One good example is if the parent deity is of lesser status than the child; there's something going on there. Another is close relatives of strongly opposed alignments. 

IMHO and all that.


----------



## Bluenose (Aug 21, 2010)

Primal said:


> Anyway, you don't need to preach to the choir; I've said multiple times on this board that D&D (and de facto *RPGs in general) don't model fiction very wel*l.




Not necessarily. You don't see many people saying Pendragon is bad at modelling Arthurian romance novels. Plenty of people claim that their preferred Star Wars RPG does a good job of modelling the films. Qin seems to me to give a good 'feel' for Chinese stories - Tales of the Water Margin, Monkey, Romance of the Three Kingdoms - and legends. What these games have in common is they're trying to do one specific thing really well, which D&D is not. D&D aims at being useable for all sorts of fantasy, and doesn't quite get match perfectly to any of them. 



> However, fantasy RPGs are based on and inspired by -- along with other types of oral and written tradition -- fantasy fiction. And fantasy has certain tropes and cliches that it is associated with; for example, a player understands that a high magic world probably has lots of powerful wizards and magical items. If it doesn't, he might feel that the world is inconsistent with the traits and the image related to high/epic fantasy. Even though the standards are a bit different from fiction, fantasy RPGs (and the settings) are still "enslaved" by the genre. I also don't see any problem with Greyhawk having only a few high-level NPCs and lots of mid-level NPCs; it's a bit grittier than FR, and set between low and high fantasy (closer to high fantasy, though). FR is another beast; it *did* feature far less archmages (and other high level NPCs) originally, but I guess TSR wanted to radically distinguish it from Greyhawk (and yet I think my original point about 'high level characters vs. low level threats' still stands).




High levels of magic and high fantasy aren't the same thing. Lord of the Rings is high fantasy, on most definitions, but magic is quite rare. Eberron and Glorantha have very extensive uses of magic, but high fantasy they ain't.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 21, 2010)

I find it odd that people keep bringing up Greyhawk, which I _also_ heavily dislike.  But lets go into a few reasons why I hate FR.

1) I hate Hellenistic style pantheons.  It bores me to tears that there's _no mysteries_ regarding the gods, the afterlife, or faith in general.  Why would anyone ever have a crises of faith?  Just find a local priest to get a quick call into Torm and find out *exactly* what he feels about things.  Holy wars?  Over what?  I exactly can't put you to the sword and demand you convert to the one true religion when your god can literally lean down and tell me to cut it out.  And then you hit that there are evil gods, the most stupid idea imaginable.  Hmm, do I worship the deity of love, kindness, understanding, and giving, or should I worship the deity of "sends all his believers to the hells."  A tough decision to make!

2) There is and never has been and never will be "change" in the setting.  Oh sure, there's the occasional apocalypse.  But the setting itself stays the same.  There's all these ancient ruins and magical artifacts lying around everywhere, and we're lead to believe that life, technology, societal advancement, magical research, and everything has just been at a stop for _thousands_ if not _millions_ of years?  How utterly, utterly *dull*.

3) There's no mysteries, and yes I know I just said that in the first reason.  Sorry, uncovering that the local thieves guild is really lead by an evil organization is somewhat meaningless when *they all are*.  Want to stop a bad guy?  Don't worry, there's two or three "secret" societies that everyone and their mom knows about.  You can't walk ten feet in FR without tripping over a powerful and "mysterious" society, except there's nothing about them that's particularly secret, unknown, or, well, mysterious.  Or heck, tie this into the other two.  You find ancient ruins of a long lost civilization!  ...Who are, apparently, just the same as people are in the modern era, and in the end, all you gain from it is an artifact that could've been made by the wizard down the street!  A local hidden temple signifies a mystic and unknown religion.  Wait, hold on, let me just cast...yeah...yeah, ok, Lathander says it's just Cyric cocking about again.

4) It doesn't make sense.  So you have this super high magic world where there's an archmage on every block and a powerful cleric in every village, and yet there's all these kings and peasants?  People are still building castles in a world where you can't see the sun through all the flying monsters and mages?  Hell, there's apparently enough murderers for them to have their own god, despite the fact that any ol' cleric can just Speak to Dead and find out who killed them.  In fact, why are there assassins in the first place when kings can just be raised from the dead without worry?  Speaking of kings, there are merchants carting around powerful and arcane weaponry and yet the middle class has never bothered socially weakening the position of the kings?

5) Ed Greenwood is _so creepy_.  He's like the ur-creephat grognard.  Totally counts as a reason.

6) Woops, forgot to make things interesting!  Maybe that's why the Realms are so Forgotten.  THere's nothing that stands out (other then mediocrity).  Like I said earlier, it's not so much a high fantasy setting based on medieval Europe, it's a high fantasy setting based on being a high fantasy setting.  So much is borrowed wholestock from LotR without any of the reasoning behind the LotR developments.  They took high fantasy and mythology and ancient history and _took out everything that made it interesting_.  This isn't just FR mind you, it's a flaw in D&D as a whole.  

You have these elves that are supposed to be better then humans because they were crafted by the archangels and to serve the song of the Creator.  Except none of that is in D&D, elves are better "Well just because."  So that bit of what could be interesting is dead.  Half elves are amazing(ly rare) because the elves and humans are two different races, not only in their longevity, but in their very spiritual makeup.  Except the aformentioned religious aspect of elves is gone, so that's also dead.  Dwarves and elves have an antipathy for each other because the dwarves were a renegade-made race of an impatient archangel who wished to father his own children, but were set in a course of jealousy with the First Born, the elves.  Only nope, that doesn't happen either - they just sorta hate each other because well they do.  FR mentions that elves go to a mysteeerious island rather then "dying," except there's _no reason for it_.  

I could go on.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Aug 21, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> 5) Ed Greenwood is _so creepy_.  He's like the ur-creephat grognard.  Totally counts as a reason.




No.

See, this is where I draw the line with critics.  I can understand people having their own personal judgments of the campaign, but I like to draw the line when it comes to people trying to conduct armchair psychoanalysis of the writers themselves.  

When people say "I think Elmister/Drizz't is an uber-character with no flaws", that is a fair opinion.  (Although I think people really need to read the novels to understand that these characters do have flaws.)

When people say things akin to Elminster and Drizzt are power-fantasies from their creators, that's where I draw the line.  Trying to engage is figuring out the author's personality from the characters they write is an poor effort and you are more likely to projects your own judgement of the characters or the setting on the writers, and that to me is unfair and quite rude.

Keep the judgments of their works seperate from the judgments of the men and women who write them.


----------



## IronWolf (Aug 21, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I find it odd that people keep bringing up Greyhawk, which I _also_ heavily dislike.  But lets go into a few reasons why I hate FR.
> 
> ....  snipped ....
> 
> I could go on.




I'm not going to try to change your mind, as I've said elsewhere in this thread I fully understand not everyone is going to agree on campaign settings, I know there are several I could come up with long reasons of why I dislike them, but fully realize others may love them.  Thank goodness for lots of campaign settings to choose from.

But I will say, it seems like the Realms you've played in is different than the one I have DM'ed in.


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Aug 21, 2010)

I've got to say, every time I read another reason why someone hates the Realms I like it one more reason more.  And I didn't start out finding the Realms all that interesting.


----------



## Philosopher (Aug 21, 2010)

Aldarc said:


> Because the deities of the Forgotten Realms were also crafted by as much of an imagination as possessed by our ancient ancestors who saw the gods as being as just as real as the gods of the Realms.




But the FR deities (as with all deities used in D&D) are designed _for a game_ and _for a set of stories_. The imagination that created them had different interests than the ones that invented the gods of RW religions.



Aldarc said:


> When gods war and play against each other, those relationships matter. Will these details be used? Not always, but they are there for when they are relevant, namely in how it affects the clergy and lay person.






the Jester said:


> Since I don't have any GH stuff handy and I haven't used it as my campaign in around 15 years, I don't really remember who is related to who so well, so I'm not going to be able to throw out GH-specific examples, but just noting that god A is the father of god B and god C actually _does_ suggest a lot- given the other information you have.
> 
> Generally, you'll know the deity's status (greater, intermediate, lesser, demi-); alignment; and portfolio, at a minimum.
> 
> ...




Then focus on alliances and rivalries, agreements and disagreements between the gods, because _that_ is what matters. And FR gods, for all their faults, have that.



ProfessorCirno said:


> It bores me to tears that there's _no mysteries_ regarding the gods, the afterlife, or faith in general.
> 
> [...]
> 
> ...




So you want there to be mystery. Okay, but...



ProfessorCirno said:


> You have these elves that are supposed to be better then humans because they were crafted by the archangels and to serve the song of the Creator.  Except none of that is in D&D, elves are better "Well just because."  So that bit of what could be interesting is dead.  Half elves are amazing(ly rare) because the elves and humans are two different races, not only in their longevity, but in their very spiritual makeup.  Except the aformentioned religious aspect of elves is gone, so that's also dead.  Dwarves and elves have an antipathy for each other because the dwarves were a renegade-made race of an impatient archangel who wished to father his own children, but were set in a course of jealousy with the First Born, the elves.  Only nope, that doesn't happen either - they just sorta hate each other because well they do.  FR mentions that elves go to a mysteeerious island rather then "dying," except there's _no reason for it_.




... then you go on to complain that some things are left mysterious. 



ProfessorCirno said:


> This isn't just FR mind you, it's a flaw in D&D as a whole.




So if you hate FR, then you must also hate D&D, which raises the question... Why do you care about any of this in the first place?


----------



## Aldarc (Aug 21, 2010)

Philosopher said:


> But the FR deities (as with all deities used in D&D) are designed _for a game_ and _for a set of stories_. The imagination that created them had different interests than the ones that invented the gods of RW religions.



They may have different interests, but the net result should be approximately the same. 



> Then focus on alliances and rivalries, agreements and disagreements between the gods, because _that_ is what matters. And FR gods, for all their faults, have that.



But the pantheon does not have the feeling of cohesion. And this would still do nothing to fix all the other reasons why I do not particularly care for Forgotten Realms, namely the aforementioned lack of any unifying theme, just generic high fantasy based on generic high fantasy. 



> So if you hate FR, then you must also hate D&D, which raises the question... Why do you care about any of this in the first place?



He does not appear to be saying this, but he can speak for himself.


----------



## Clarabell (Aug 21, 2010)

I never use forgotten realms because as far as I'm concerned, that's someone else's story. I like creating my own worlds with my own stories.


----------



## Azgulor (Aug 21, 2010)

Philosopher said:


> So if you hate FR, then you must also hate D&D, which raises the question... Why do you care about any of this in the first place?




*BS*.  I hate the FR, having abandoned it for the reasons I listed above but I like D&D/PF & other fantasy RPGs.  While I like D&D as a RPG, I felt 2e & 3e embraced High Fantasy as a default power level making it more difficult to run a traditional swords-n-sorcery or pulp fantasy style game.  I didn't hate D&D, I just had to tweak it as needed to suit my tastes.  Insisting that a dislike of the FR must equate to a dislike of D&D isn't in the same universe as a well-reasoned conclusion.

D&D, with the possible exception of 4e (and I only say that as I'm not familiar enough with it to judge) could be tweaked to support a wide range of playstyles.  This includes FR-style over the top high fantasy but there's nothing that _*requires*_ one to run a campaign that way.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 21, 2010)

Philosopher said:


> So you want there to be mystery. Okay, but...
> 
> 
> 
> ... then you go on to complain that some things are left mysterious.




Except the elf island thing isn't a mystery, it's "woops we forgot to add something interesting."

They just said "Elves in LotR go to an island, ours do too.  OK DONE!"  There's no mystery involved because it's utterly pointless.



> So if you hate FR, then you must also hate D&D, which raises the  question... Why do you care about any of this in the first place?




Hah hah, yes, ok, Forgotten Realms is *D&D in it's entirety!*  I must've missed that memo somewhere along the way.



JohnRTroy said:


> No.




Yes.

My problem is not with Elminster or with Drizzt (Come on Drizzt isn't even Ed Greenwood :|).  It's with Ed himself being creepy.

Oh, I have issues with Elminster and Drizzt, mind you.  But that's an entirely separate issue from the creepiness.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Aug 21, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Yes.
> 
> My problem is not with Elminster or with Drizzt (Come on Drizzt isn't even Ed Greenwood :|).  It's with Ed himself being creepy.




I was addressing others complaints, your quote fell right it.

Creepy, how so?

Then it's not relevant to the discussion, and you should draw the line at making that aside.  Not to mention it was quite rude.  

If he was a member of this forum you wouldn't be able to get away with that personal attack.  I personally think we should treat the "famous people" the way we treat everybody else, with as much dignity and respect as we can muster.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Aug 21, 2010)

Don't feed the junk of an author being creepy please, it's just an irrelevant argument.


----------



## Psion (Aug 21, 2010)

JohnRTroy said:


> I was addressing others complaints, your quote fell right it.
> 
> Creepy, how so?




Not Cirno, but...
1)
Of Sues Best Unspoken - RPGnet Forums
2)
Certain anecdotes about some ribaldrous comments by Ed which I won't link to here, but be it well enough to say that from comments there, I understand weren't unique in any way.



> If he was a member of this forum you wouldn't be able to get away with that personal attack.  I personally think we should treat the "famous people" the way we treat everybody else, with as much dignity and respect as we can muster.




Is saying someone's commentary disturbs you against forum policy? Hmmm. Tough call, but I think until a mod clarifies, I'll say I feel a bit the way Cirno does.

Unlike Cirno, however, I do link my dislike for Elminster to Ed's _eccentric_ creative, um, _priorities_. Looking back at the exploits of Elminster in 2e books, it seems bizarrely cheesy in an teenage-like exploitative fantasy kind of way. Like the bit in the 2e Drow of the Underdark book wherein old Elminster conveniently introduces the book from the pool he shares with Hawt Drow Maidens[TM].


----------



## Primal (Aug 21, 2010)

Bluenose said:


> Not necessarily. You don't see many people saying Pendragon is bad at modelling Arthurian romance novels. Plenty of people claim that their preferred Star Wars RPG does a good job of modelling the films. Qin seems to me to give a good 'feel' for Chinese stories - Tales of the Water Margin, Monkey, Romance of the Three Kingdoms - and legends. What these games have in common is they're trying to do one specific thing really well, which D&D is not. D&D aims at being useable for all sorts of fantasy, and doesn't quite get match perfectly to any of them.




I did not mean to imply that NO role-playing games can model fiction; for example, Baron Munchausen, The Shadow of Yesterday or Polaris and other indie "nar" games usually do. When I say "modeling fiction", I mean that most RPGs just don't encourage it in their mechanics. Those that do usually produce "better" stories (and by this I mean thematic elements and coherent plot appropriate for the genre; for instance, at a certain point a character's death might serve the story better than a triumphant victory). And usually this is due to systems lacking focus (as you noted). Ergo, if I wanted to "model" Lankhmar stories, I might rather use TSoY or Mortal Coil than RQ or D&D (even though the latter two are both systems which Lankhmar has been published for). 



> High levels of magic and high fantasy aren't the same thing. Lord of the Rings is high fantasy, on most definitions, but magic is quite rare. Eberron and Glorantha have very extensive uses of magic, but high fantasy they ain't.




It depends; as you noted yourself, there are a number of definitions for high and low fantasy, and if we asked ten lit. experts, we'd probably get ten answers more or less different from each other. And it's not just the subgenres; in literature it's usually more convenient to talk about speculative fiction because it gets really "fuzzy" on the edges. For example, certain Lankhmar stories also blend in science fiction elements. To use another example, the Chronicles of Amber have elements of fantasy, science fiction and horror. Sometimes it's even hard to identify the main genre a work belongs to, because genres are transient and mutable; even better yet, cultural definitions vary, too (e.g. Chinese fantasy is quite different from Western fantasy).

If we use Tolkien's 'Secondary World' as a definition for High Fantasy, Eberron and Glorantha both *are* High Fantasy. As would be Harry Potter, all Lankhmar books but not, say, Lightning Thief (it takes place on the 'Primary World'). However, another popular "identifying trait" is the 'Epic struggle between Good and Evil', HP, LotR and LT would be High Fantasy, but Leiber's novels would not. In RPGs it would be depend on the focus of the campaign and the goals and actions of the PCs. 

And yet we might focus on the amount of magic in the stories; is it commonplace and ordinary? Is magic used widely and often? Are there powerful spells and spellcasters in the setting. All of these are viable questions, and please note that I did not equate "powerful magic = high fantasy" in my post. Using these standards Lankhmar would be low fantasy, but if you ask me, I'd still qualify Eberron and RQ/Glorantha as high fantasy -- magic is commonplace and especially in Eberron it has, to my understanding, more or less permeated the society (elemental trains, magical airships, magical streetlights, living constructs, etcetera). 

All these definitions are just as "valid", and AFAIK there is no single theory that would be all-encompassing in identifying and categorizing the subgenres of speculative fiction.


----------



## Philosopher (Aug 21, 2010)

Aldarc said:


> They may have different interests, but the net result should be approximately the same.




So our campaigns should be constrained by the limited imagination of primitive tribes? Come on, a bunch of people were complaining (legitimately) that FR (in addition to many other campaigns) throws powerful magic into an otherwise medieval-ish society without factoring in how all that powerful magic would affect said society. If the gods are real and actually take an interest in the affairs of mortals, then the religions (and how they're conceived) _should_ be different.



Aldarc said:


> But the pantheon does not have the feeling of cohesion. And this would still do nothing to fix all the other reasons why I do not particularly care for Forgotten Realms, namely the aforementioned lack of any unifying theme, just generic high fantasy based on generic high fantasy.




This is a legitimate criticism of FR (I could get nitpicky about the relevance of a cohesive pantheon - see my comment just above - but I won't harp about this). Note, however, that this point is completely orthogonal to the point about the gods having familial relations.



Aldarc said:


> He does not appear to be saying this, but he can speak for himself.




He did not say this at all, but it was implied by his comments. (See below.)



Azgulor said:


> Insisting that a dislike of the FR must equate to a dislike of D&D isn't in the same universe as a well-reasoned conclusion.




Of course a hate of FR is not the same at a hate of D&D. My comment was pointing out an absurd implication of ProfessorCirno's comments (which I would say were anything but well-reasoned).



ProfessorCirno said:


> Except the elf island thing isn't a mystery, it's "woops we forgot to add something interesting."
> 
> They just said "Elves in LotR go to an island, ours do too.  OK DONE!"  There's no mystery involved because it's utterly pointless.




Isn't a mystery just something that's left unexplained?



ProfessorCirno said:


> Hah hah, yes, ok, Forgotten Realms is *D&D in it's entirety!*  I must've missed that memo somewhere along the way.




I'm glad you think this conclusion is completely ridiculous. In order to remain consistent, however, you may want to modify your earlier claims, because your earlier claims _imply_ this ridiculous conclusion. In giving your reasons why FR is  completely uninteresting, you said, and I quote, "This isn't just FR mind you, it's a flaw in D&D as a whole." If you think that this is a reason to level such hatred at FR, and if you think the same problem applies to "D&D as a whole", then what _other_ conclusion could one possibly draw?

Come on people, it's called a _reductio_, my comment was in direct response to what I quoted ProfessorCirno as saying. I have no problem with people disliking the Realms, but if you insist on giving reasons for that dislike, then at least think your reasons through.


----------



## Alzrius (Aug 21, 2010)

Aldarc said:


> What kind of cheap rhetorical baiting is this? This is not only completely unnecessary, but also an unwarranted insult to both Celebrim and me. What purpose could this possibly serve?




So you consider being compared to Celebrim to be an unwarranted insult to you? Wow, and you called me cheap.

Seriously, it's a reasonable suspicion, since you came in at the exact same time he left, picked up where he left off in the debate, and presented the exact same arguments in the exact same way. You may not like it, but it's hardly "cheap rhetorical baiting" - though calling it that certainly is.



> _I do not believe that is true, as the perception for the ancient people was a world in which the gods were entirely active in the world and their lives._




But a fantasy role-playing game doesn't need to base itself off the historical perceptions of ancient people. Even if it were trying to hold itself to that level of verisimilitude it'd still be fundamentally flawed, simply because of how different the historical reality is from a world in which so many mythological aspects are real.



> _It is a touch of verisimilitude of real life religions that adds an extra dimension to pantheons._




Believability and internal consistency lend those dimensions - not mimicking the mythologies that people in the real world used to hold.



> _It makes it feel real to me and not randomly assembled. To say then that I do not like this absent quality of the FR pantheon is not unreasonable. For if it is, as you say, absent in FR then I am within my rights to dislike this aspect of FR. The pantheon does not feel real to me. While it feels real enough for you to suffice, it feels wholly artificial and lackluster to me. _




You can hold whatever opinions you like; I'm certainly not telling you otherwise - if you can't get past that singular point, that's your issue and yours alone. I'm simply pointing out that holding onto that single point and discounting all others isn't a reasonable basis for making the blanket claim - as you did, that the entire pantheon is one-dimensional. You can say that all you like, of course, but a qualitative critique of something usually requires some level of justification beyond "it's not what I like."



> _It does not escape me, but then again, I am not arguing for one or the other, but for the presence of both. That makes it clear that I do not particularly care for either pantheon. _




You weren't, in fact, arguing for both. You were arguing in favor of that which, and I quote, "suggests a larger, living mythological framework behind the notation within the religious life. And these myths should be where the character development of the gods take place and not so much the present."

That makes it pretty clear that you don't want active deities who are undertaking noteworthy deeds - just the ancient myths, or even things that suggest them, rather than anything more current.



> _I am not entirely sure what connotations you are referring._




See above.



> _I am not suggesting anywhere that "any recent and/or overt actions that gods take is automatically lesser than unspecified, ancient actions that may or may not have been undertaken." I am saying that character development is not rooted directly in the life of a setting, but rooted in the chronology of the setting itself. _




And I disagree heartily - it's what the campaign setting does, not where it came from, that established its development. I'll grant you that there's certainly something to be said for having well-developed characters right out of the gate, but even that characterization needs to be shown; if not in detailed write-ups then in the burden falls to later products to make good on what's implied earlier.



> _But to clarify, I will correct myself by saying that these myths should be where the majority of character development of the gods should take place. The present acts as a fulcrum of character development for many gods in campaign worlds. Players may be privy to glimpses that the otherwise good god of hugs and kisses is becoming corrupt through the questionable actions of the deity and his clergy. This is a sort character development that does not require that the entire pantheon be re-written from top to bottom just because a game-setting novelist sneezes. _




There is a middle ground, you know, instead of the extremes you're describing. Why can't you have a sourcebook that describes, overtly, the various facets of the god in question, instead of dropping tiny clues that are never otherwise expanded upon? Good characterization isn't limited to hints that are never explored.



> _In other words, you are putting words into my mouth and misconstruing my argument. And I do not appreciate it. _




In fact, I was correctly restating your own words - if you don't care for them, perhaps you should ask yourself why that is.



> _When novels drag the game setting by the collar, they become necessary. When people have to read the novels to make out heads-or-tails of what is going on in their gaming setting, they become necessary. The DM is at the mercy of the novels (a similar problem that plagued Dark Sun and Dragonlance)._




That's ridiculous - you don't need to read any of the FR novels to use the game supplements and settings; you can get along just fine without them. They're not necessary in any sense of the word.



> _But the novels should not be necessary for the character development of the pantheon. These should be primarily in the deity supplements._




Again, they're not necessary - they certainly help, but I agree that they shouldn't act as a substitute for the deity supplements. I just prefer that there be deity supplements that expand on the deities in question, as I've stated several times now.



> _What a loaded question. I also do not want you to put words in my mouth or to misleadingly frame my arguments. Deities can be "more deeply explored and fleshed out in supplements released later" without the deities actively changing or growing "over the life of a setting." These deities may have changed and grown over the timeline of the setting. _




First, it wasn't a question at all. Second, it's not misleadingly framing your arguments; I'm attempting to figure out your position, which isn't easy when you take every effort on my part to do so as some sort of personal attack.

Based on your own statement here, you've made it clear that you prefer that deities not change or grow over the life of a setting, but only in the backstory of before the setting was released, and in its campaign history. I, personally, don't see the difference, but if it's so important to you that you get upset when I restate your own words, then okay.



> _Gods can do new things, but I prefer that these things are either behind the scenes or less overt in the world. What you described is the focus of what I want for the players and heroes, but not the gods. _




But whether or not their actions are overt or not - from the in-game perspective, I mean - isn't a consideration in regards to whether they're fully-developed characters or not. If it's made explicit in the various supplements about them (and yes, in novels too), then that's what counts. 



> _So why do you act as if only your opinion regarding the worth of FR is valid? People are clearly expressing their opinions regarding aspects they dislike about FR. Philosopher made a healthy distinction between opinions. _




I don't act like that - you're interpreting my statements that way, which is you putting words in my mouth, despite claiming having been victimized in the same way, which is very disingenuous.



> _Then you can have it, but do not disparage me when that detracts from the setting. The primary problem for me, and others have aired similar opinions in this thread, is not that the pantheon grows and diminishes, but of how rapidly it does so. It does not just grow and diminish; it practically becomes a different pantheon entirely over the course of a few decades. It is a wonder that people worship gods at all when they come flavored as "God of the Month Club." There is little time for character growth when they come and go as the tides. Growing and diminishing pantheons does not equate to character development. This is just another form of notation and book-keeping. _




Okay, a lot to deal with in this paragraph.

1) I'm not disparaging you just because I don't agree with your opinions. Please stop claiming victimhood, and lets just stick to the nature of the debate.

2) Over-dramatically stating that the FR pantheon changes so much that it inhibits character growth isn't true. Firstly because characters can become well-developed over any length of time (even immediately, since sourcebooks generally don't advance a campaign timeline, but can still present a holistic snapshot of a deity).

3) Growing and diminishing pantheons isn't character development, certainly. But the circumstances give us a chance to showcase different aspects of a character. Is that necessary? No, but it's still a good opportunity to do so.



> _Of course, but for me the perception remains the same. The pantheon looks haphazardly assembled. Even individuals have family relationships and lineages. These are not contradictory ideas. _




I'm not saying they are - I'm saying that simply having those does not, unto itself, make divine characters well-developed.



> _Well thank goodness then that I do not care about GH deities vs. the FR deities, but simply what I dislike about the FR pantheon. But I will say that "no coverage and exposure" could just as easily mean, "privy to the interpretive freedom of the DM." I honestly do not expect all deities to receive equal doses of character development. This certainly holds true in the history of religions. _




Citing the history of real religions hasn't helped your position before, and it doesn't now. Real religions have nothing at all to do with fantasy religions.

That said, equating a lack of development as freedom for the DM to develop material is a false analogy - the DM is _always_ free to change and develop any aspect of the campaign world as they see fit. What we're discussing is the nature of the characters as presented in the written material.



> _(Also, at my own piqued interest, it turns out that Berna has more of a description than simply what Celebrim posted. She even has several myths surrounding her.) _




Cool. Where can I read more about them?



> _As I told you, in my text that you quoted no less, this is a red herring. I do not care about Greyhawk. Talking about how this is insufficient in Greyhawk is utterly beside the point. I did not say that I liked Greyhawk. I did not say that Greyhawk exemplified the traits that I like either. Book of the Righteous exemplifies traits that I like in more active pantheons. The Sovereign Host exemplifies traits that I like in more ambiguously-existing pantheons. And the Diamond Throne and Dark Sun exemplify traits of pantheons that I like in most of my settings: remote or dead, but either way inconsequential. _




Actually (unless they've changed it in 4E) Dark Sun has no pantheons at all, and never did. Or did you mean the Sorcerer-Kings?



> _I quite agree with the last paragraph, but my vexation is primarily with the mercurial composition of the pantheon. It leaves little room, in my esteem, for developing those gods over time or in the present. The changes do not seem to be the result of character growth or development, but by the whims of the developers and the system. A constant state of flux of the deities does not naturally beget character development. This is an absolutely fallacious assertion. The lack of mythology is unreasonable considering the enormous length of the timeline. _




I understand that you don't like the pantheon's composition, but saying that the lack of relationships or myths about the gods makes them poorly-developed ignores the material that does, in fact, develop them. Divine "shake-ups" don't necessarily beget development, but they create good circumstances to portray it - that's when circumstances are called upon at all, and they're not simply showcased in sourcebooks. In fact, both are used for quite a few members of the FR pantheon.



> _More is quantitative, but more is not always qualitatively better. _




Certainly. But more material gives more opportunities for qualitative development; less does not.



> _I was not the one that boldly flaunted in a patronizing manner that I know more than someone else about a particular subject. That per the definition is condescension. _




Incorrect. To say that I know more about a particular subject than someone else - when I've read the material and they've freely admitted that they have not - isn't patronizing; it's a statement of fact.



> _Now I have explained aspects regarding Forgotten Realms that I personally dislike. These are opinions which I hold and do not necessarily expect others, like yourself and other FR apologetics in this thread, to equally hold as true. So why, Alzrius, do you take all of this so personally? Are people not allowed to dislike the Forgotten Realms?_




You do realize that this entire last paragraph is engaging in the very tactics you accused me of using, right? Using insulting terms like "apologetics," falsely painting me as taking this debate "personally," and the loaded question at the end are all examples of attitudes you wrongly said I was bringing to bear on you. I'll overlook it this time, since I want this to remain a civil debate, but I'd like you not to engage in this sort of thing again as we continue.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 22, 2010)

Philosopher said:


> Isn't a mystery just something that's left unexplained?




Nope.  A mystery involves intrigue or suspense.  The elven isle has neither.



> I'm glad you think this conclusion is completely ridiculous. In order to remain consistent, however, you may want to modify your earlier claims, because your earlier claims _imply_ this ridiculous conclusion. In giving your reasons why FR is  completely uninteresting, you said, and I quote, "This isn't just FR mind you, it's a flaw in D&D as a whole." If you think that this is a reason to level such hatred at FR, and if you think the same problem applies to "D&D as a whole", then what _other_ conclusion could one possibly draw?




That's a lot of words to say absolutely nothing.

One of my problems with FR is a problem I've had with a lot of D&D as a whole.  Simple as that.


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Aug 22, 2010)

Psion,
hehe, least someone got it 

oh and hot tub with drow babes? HELL YES!! Waggle them bubble-makers, gals, it's hunt the luffa time!
*splash!*


----------



## Philosopher (Aug 22, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Nope.  A mystery involves intrigue or suspense.  The elven isle has neither.




Not how I hear the word used, but whatever. You want them to tell you what makes it intriguing rather than have it be something you can develop. Personally, when I first looked at the Old Grey Box, this struck me as something worth exploring. While it never came to fruition (as with many ideas while brainstorming), I started to think up adventures in which the PCs tried to figure what was going on, perhaps end up helping the elves if it was due to some problem they faced.



ProfessorCirno said:


> That's a lot of words to say absolutely nothing.




Choosing to ignore what I wrote is one thing, but claiming it's "absolutely nothing"? Fine. Given your comments about Ed Greenwood's character, I guess I shouldn't have expected any desire to discourse from you.


----------



## Aldarc (Aug 22, 2010)

Alzrius, I admit that you have presented me with a daunting challenge by splicing up my post as much as you have done. It has become a wall of text. This is typically a sign, once a discussion comes to this point, that the discussion is close to an end or a standstill. I hope you do not mind if I lump together similar points collectively. 



Alzrius said:


> So you consider being compared to Celebrim to be an unwarranted insult to you? Wow, and you called me cheap.
> 
> Seriously, it's a reasonable suspicion, since you came in at the exact same time he left, picked up where he left off in the debate, and presented the exact same arguments in the exact same way. You may not like it, but it's hardly "cheap rhetorical baiting" - though calling it that certainly is.



No. I consider lumping two people together and mocking that they are the same individual is rude and disrespectful to the integrity of both individuals. Assuming that two people on a forum as large as this are the same people simply because they share points of agreement is unreasonable and irrational. That is cheap rhetorical baiting. 



> But a fantasy role-playing game doesn't need to base itself off the historical perceptions of ancient people. Even if it were trying to hold itself to that level of verisimilitude it'd still be fundamentally flawed, simply because of how different the historical reality is from a world in which so many mythological aspects are real.
> 
> Believability and internal consistency lend those dimensions - not mimicking the mythologies that people in the real world used to hold.



The thing is that the historical perception is not different from the FR perception: the gods are real. They talk to the priests and walk among the people. They have children with mortals. They push their own agendas using mortals as the playthings. Humans can rise to become gods. They wield vast power and control the various aspects of nature and civilization. Except FR does not explore the full implications of how such deities would impact the world setting. That detracts from its believability and internal consistency. I would expect a different approach to religion than how it is practiced in the realms. 



> I'm simply pointing out that holding onto that single point and discounting all others isn't a reasonable basis for making the blanket claim - as you did, that the entire pantheon is one-dimensional. You can say that all you like, of course, but a qualitative critique of something usually requires some level of justification beyond "it's not what I like."



I still stand by my belief in the one-dimesionality of the pantheon. You call them flowers, but they look, feel, smell like artificial flowers to me. They do not behave as 



> You weren't, in fact, arguing for both. You were arguing in favor of that which, and I quote, "suggests a larger, living mythological framework behind the notation within the religious life. And these myths should be where the character development of the gods take place and not so much the present."
> 
> That makes it pretty clear that you don't want active deities who are undertaking noteworthy deeds - just the ancient myths, or even things that suggest them, rather than anything more current.



Did you not bother to read my restatement? I am arguing that you are being unfairly dismissive of the "notations" and their implications. If there are active deities in a setting, then I want both aspects to be present. And my preference is for these gods to already have myths to their names. Being able to list family relations among gods is frequently indicative of such myths, especially when combined with the rote notations provided in sourcebooks. 



> And I disagree heartily - it's what the campaign setting does, not where it came from, that established its development. I'll grant you that there's certainly something to be said for having well-developed characters right out of the gate, but even that characterization needs to be shown; if not in detailed write-ups then in the burden falls to later products to make good on what's implied earlier.



And I disagree heartily - it's what the campaign setting establishes that shows the development of the world. A campaign sourcebook could talk about the fall of a god from grace, or the shift of a god's portfolios over time and their shifting allegiances. None of this requires that the setting is repeatedly shaken up per edition for development. New sourcebooks could allude to this gradual corruption or redemption, or even noteworthy things the deities have done in the chronological gap between sourcebooks. But it is more than possible to have well-developed characters at the launch of a setting. Kaius, the King of Karnnath, in Eberron only needed one sourcebook to be a multi-dimensional character. One book is all you need to create a well-developed and multi-dimensional character. 



> There is a middle ground, you know, instead of the extremes you're describing. Why can't you have a sourcebook that describes, overtly, the various facets of the god in question, instead of dropping tiny clues that are never otherwise expanded upon? Good characterization isn't limited to hints that are never explored.



I am not advocating extremes. What you are reading is the middle ground between ambiguously absent gods and overtly active gods. I would hope that these gods would be _sufficiently_ developed. Good characterization is also not limited to constantly shuffling the pantheonic deck. Hints can become something much greater and explored at the leisure of the DM. They can decide how deep the rabbit hole goes. 



> In fact, I was correctly restating your own words - if you don't care for them, perhaps you should ask yourself why that is.



No you were not correctly restating my words. 



> That's ridiculous - you don't need to read any of the FR novels to use the game supplements and settings; you can get along just fine without them. They're not necessary in any sense of the word.
> 
> Again, they're not necessary - they certainly help, but I agree that they shouldn't act as a substitute for the deity supplements. I just prefer that there be deity supplements that expand on the deities in question, as I've stated several times now.



And when players are more familiar with the setting and gods because they have read them and you, the DM, have not? It becomes a different sort of rules-lawyer - the canon-lawyer. But it is good that we have one more point of agreement. 



> First, it wasn't a question at all. Second, it's not misleadingly framing your arguments; I'm attempting to figure out your position, which isn't easy when you take every effort on my part to do so as some sort of personal attack.



If you are curious about my preferences and my position, then all you have to do is ask about what you want to know.  



> Based on your own statement here, you've made it clear that you prefer that deities not change or grow over the life of a setting, but only in the backstory of before the setting was released, and in its campaign history. I, personally, don't see the difference, but if it's so important to you that you get upset when I restate your own words, then okay.



The difference is that one establishes a well-developed tool that the DM can use without the immediate threat of losing that tool to a novel or new sourcebook that completely rewrites the setting. I prefer to have the character development from the get-go once I pick up the soucebooks and not have to wait for novels or the next edition to get a well-developed character. 



> But whether or not their actions are overt or not - from the in-game perspective, I mean - isn't a consideration in regards to whether they're fully-developed characters or not. If it's made explicit in the various supplements about them (and yes, in novels too), then that's what counts.



That is acceptable. 



> I don't act like that - you're interpreting my statements that way, which is you putting words in my mouth, despite claiming having been victimized in the same way, which is very disingenuous.



Then I apologize if I misunderstood. 



> 2) Over-dramatically stating that the FR pantheon changes so much that it inhibits character growth isn't true. Firstly because characters can become well-developed over any length of time (even immediately, since sourcebooks generally don't advance a campaign timeline, but can still present a holistic snapshot of a deity).



They can be developed in a short amount of time, but from my estimation of the pantheon, that is not the case. 



> 3) Growing and diminishing pantheons isn't character development, certainly. But the circumstances give us a chance to showcase different aspects of a character. Is that necessary? No, but it's still a good opportunity to do so.



And that lack of necessity makes it all seem so silly and artificial, especially when there are plentiful other ways of character development apart from shuffling deities around. 



> Citing the history of real religions hasn't helped your position before, and it doesn't now. Real religions have nothing at all to do with fantasy religions.
> 
> That said, equating a lack of development as freedom for the DM to develop material is a false analogy - the DM is _always_ free to change and develop any aspect of the campaign world as they see fit. What we're discussing is the nature of the characters as presented in the written material.



DMs are free to change anything, but they are still left with the "World as Written," and that is what we are discussing. But it is not a false analogy. It is not even an analogy it all. Citing real life religions have served me quite well in this thread, as they are clearly suggestive that FR does not have what I want in an active pantheon. They do not feel like gods. They do not feel like a pantheon. While the pantheon had potential in its start, it lost its appeal to me through its lack of good development as opposed to the obviously meta-reasons for its development. 



> Cool. Where can I read more about them?



I just typed in "Berna Greyhawk" in Google. 



> Actually (unless they've changed it in 4E) Dark Sun has no pantheons at all, and never did.



Exactly.   Most of my homebrew settings have no gods at all, though it may feature beings and powers who are revered as such. I prefer ambiguity in my religions and pantheons. FR does not have that in its pantheons, so I do not prefer FR as a setting. I do not entirely mind active gods, but they must be done right and well. For me, FR does not do so. 



> I understand that you don't like the pantheon's composition, but saying that the lack of relationships or myths about the gods makes them poorly-developed ignores the material that does, in fact, develop them. Divine "shake-ups" don't necessarily beget development, but they create good circumstances to portray it - that's when circumstances are called upon at all, and they're not simply showcased in sourcebooks. In fact, both are used for quite a few members of the FR pantheon.
> 
> Certainly. But more material gives more opportunities for qualitative development; less does not.



One of the problems is that in regards to FR, amongst other settings as FR is arguably not alone in this, is that it is questionable as to whether this is the case at all - that the more is truly qualitative. And I do not think that it is the case. The material that does develop them reads as poor character development. From a meta-standpoint, it is obvious that it is not character development which drives the wheel but the notations and book-keeping. One of the criticisms of the FR pantheon in 3E was how hard the book-keeping was for players and some DMs. Is it any surprise then when the 4E FR book significantly trimmed down the number of deities and reduced minor ones to exarchs? 



> You do realize that this entire last paragraph is engaging in the very tactics you accused me of using, right? Using insulting terms like "apologetics," falsely painting me as taking this debate "personally," and the loaded question at the end are all examples of attitudes you wrongly said I was bringing to bear on you. I'll overlook it this time, since I want this to remain a civil debate, but I'd like you not to engage in this sort of thing again as we continue.



Apologetics is not an insulting term, nor do I consider it one or use it as such. An apologist defends a position through reasoned explanation. You are defending Forgotten Realms. How am I mistaken in using this term?


----------



## Hella_Tellah (Aug 22, 2010)

Psion said:


> Of Sues Best Unspoken - RPGnet Forums




Man, if that counts as perverted, count me among the most vile and debased gamers around. Most of my games are around DC Vertigo level of Mature, because real people do fun stuff without clothes sometimes. We don't describe things as they happen at the table, because, well, _eww_, but certainly I've had background plot points in my settings that could compete with that example.

One thing I've gathered from this thread is that I like the original vision of the Realms a lot more than TSR's version. I'd be a lot more likely to play in the Realms if it were a little less like Disney's _Hercules_ and a little more like HBO's _Rome_.


----------



## athos (Aug 22, 2010)

I dislike FR for a couple of reasons.  

1st)  Players have all read the books, so whenever you try and change something, they all complain about it.  The players think it is their world and not yours.

2nd)  The world is too overly developed.  If you try and put something different in, it seems to conflict with some book or another.  Once that happens, you have 15 freaking metagamers breathing down your neck telling you why you aren't "doing it right".

3rd)  Those bastards over at WotC killed off Living Greyhawk for LFR, enough said...



I once made a game where I used the FR map and nothing else, that was acceptable to me.  It is truly a beautiful map.


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Aug 22, 2010)

In RL, folk DO have very peculiar love lives, you'd be surprised or maybe not, and I won't go into for "grandama" rules etc, so why the heck shouldn't that be shown in D&D for goodness sake? jeesh.

sorry to burst folks' bubbles, but there are people out there who engage in polyamoury and orgies etc. It's nothing new, the lying hypocrisy and hidden, horrendous abuses of the Victorian era etc was the perversion, really.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 22, 2010)

There is already a role playing game for that. It is called F.A.T.A.L. I choose not to play that one when I play D&D.


----------



## Psion (Aug 22, 2010)

Hella_Tellah said:


> Man, if that counts as perverted, count me among the most vile and debased gamers around.
> (...)
> One thing I've gathered from this thread is that I like the original vision of the Realms a lot more than TSR's version. I'd be a lot more likely to play in the Realms if it were a little less like Disney's _Hercules_ and a little more like HBO's _Rome_.






Silverblade The Ench said:


> In RL, folk DO have very peculiar love lives, you'd be surprised or maybe not, and I won't go into for "grandama" rules etc, so why the heck shouldn't that be shown in D&D for goodness sake? jeesh.
> 
> sorry to burst folks' bubbles, but there are people out there who engage in polyamoury and orgies etc. It's nothing new, the lying hypocrisy and hidden, horrendous abuses of the Victorian era etc was the perversion, really.




Maybe I haven't sufficiently clarified what my objection here is. It's not that there are sexual aspects to the setting (for sufficiently mature audiences), but that little things like this come across as Ed's way of using authorial authority to insert himself in conjured sexual boasts via uber-GMPC, and I find it extremely cheesy in a "nobody over 15 should be doing this" way. Not only does Ed find it convenient and amusing to introduce us to Elminster from poolside with his nubile drow babe, but he's friends with all the hawt sorceresses of the realm. Oh yeah, and he had a fling with the goddess of magic.

It's almost as if "Joey Fusco Jr." from While You Were Sleeping took up running and writing RPGs and randomly inserted in his cliche accent "You meet this hot sorceress. By the way, yeah, I'm doin' her!"


----------



## Alzrius (Aug 22, 2010)

Aldarc said:


> Alzrius, I admit that you have presented me with a daunting challenge by splicing up my post as much as you have done. It has become a wall of text. This is typically a sign, once a discussion comes to this point, that the discussion is close to an end or a standstill. I hope you do not mind if I lump together similar points collectively.




It's fine with me, though I don't think the discussion necessarily has to come to an end or standstill. I'm quite happy to keep debating the points raised here.



> _No. I consider lumping two people together and mocking that they are the same individual is rude and disrespectful to the integrity of both individuals. Assuming that two people on a forum as large as this are the same people simply because they share points of agreement is unreasonable and irrational. That is cheap rhetorical baiting. _




I really don't see how you think that was mockery to suggest that you might be an alternate name for Celebrim. Also, the size of the forum is an irrelevant point - we've had individuals here with over ten different user names, posting as different people. Finally, it wasn't just that you two share points of agreement, as I noted previously.

Calling it cheap rhetorical baiting is itself cheap rhetorical baiting. Please stop engaging in it.



> _The thing is that the historical perception is not different from the FR perception: the gods are real. They talk to the priests and walk among the people. They have children with mortals. They push their own agendas using mortals as the playthings. Humans can rise to become gods. They wield vast power and control the various aspects of nature and civilization. Except FR does not explore the full implications of how such deities would impact the world setting. That detracts from its believability and internal consistency. I would expect a different approach to religion than how it is practiced in the realms. _




The historical perception and the fantasy perception are not at all equivalent - the former is a matter of faith, the latter is a matter of fact. People might have believed that the gods walked among them and such, but that didn't make it any more true than believing that the sun revolved around the Earth made that true.

Even overlooking the relative nature of "exploring the full implications" of something, it does have believability and internal consistency, because we see the gods there as active players in the world, shaping it and where it goes instead of passively sitting back and being shaped by it.



> _I still stand by my belief in the one-dimesionality of the pantheon. You call them flowers, but they look, feel, smell like artificial flowers to me. They do not behave as _




You do realize that you just trailed off in the middle of a 



> _Did you not bother to read my restatement? I am arguing that you are being unfairly dismissive of the "notations" and their implications. If there are active deities in a setting, then I want both aspects to be present. And my preference is for these gods to already have myths to their names. Being able to list family relations among gods is frequently indicative of such myths, especially when combined with the rote notations provided in sourcebooks. _




I did read your restatement, though it doesn't seem as though you can say the same thing for mine. It's not dismissive to characterize such notations as bringing almost nothing to the setting, because they're not actually presenting us with very much at all - you're reading into them to find more myths and backstory, which is fine for you, but that's the DM writing more material into the world; it's not the material standing on its own.



> _And I disagree heartily - it's what the campaign setting establishes that shows the development of the world. A campaign sourcebook could talk about the fall of a god from grace, or the shift of a god's portfolios over time and their shifting allegiances. None of this requires that the setting is repeatedly shaken up per edition for development. New sourcebooks could allude to this gradual corruption or redemption, or even noteworthy things the deities have done in the chronological gap between sourcebooks. But it is more than possible to have well-developed characters at the launch of a setting. Kaius, the King of Karnnath, in Eberron only needed one sourcebook to be a multi-dimensional character. One book is all you need to create a well-developed and multi-dimensional character. _




I'm less concerned with how much material is needed for good characterization than I am with having good characterization at all. I simply find that, given more opportunities over time, characters tend to develop more. It's fine if a character isn't well-developed right from the start, because later materials can step up and fill in the gaps. What I don't understand is why you seem so intent on disliking anything that doesn't do that right out of the gate.



> _I am not advocating extremes. What you are reading is the middle ground between ambiguously absent gods and overtly active gods. I would hope that these gods would be sufficiently developed. Good characterization is also not limited to constantly shuffling the pantheonic deck. Hints can become something much greater and explored at the leisure of the DM. They can decide how deep the rabbit hole goes. _




Pushing the burden of development onto the DM is not, however, the mark of good material. Good material presents the DM with developed characters to begin with, rather than failing to do so and leaving the DM to fill in the blanks.

"Sufficient" development - a nebulous term if ever there was one - is more than just noting a few familial relations. And FR's divine changes couldn't really be called "constantly shuffling the pantheonic deck." Beyond the Time of Troubles, there's only the Spellplague (which I certainly think was unnecessary) that constitutes any major pantheon-wide changes. The rest is happenstances for individual deities or small groups of individuals.



> _And when players are more familiar with the setting and gods because they have read them and you, the DM, have not? It becomes a different sort of rules-lawyer - the canon-lawyer._




As numerous others have pointed out, canon-lawyers have only as much power as the DM allows them to have. It's hardly fair to say that the novels actually detract from a setting because they arm these canon-lawyers at the expense of the DM. 



> _If you are curious about my preferences and my position, then all you have to do is ask about what you want to know._




I should also add that, from what I know of your position, I disagree with it and am attempting to explain why.  



> _The difference is that one establishes a well-developed tool that the DM can use without the immediate threat of losing that tool to a novel or new sourcebook that completely rewrites the setting. I prefer to have the character development from the get-go once I pick up the soucebooks and not have to wait for novels or the next edition to get a well-developed character._




The DM is never under "immediate threat" of losing anything - expansions and new material don't invalidate the DM's ability to create or change anything they want in their game. This is a position of DM impotence that I've never understood. I personally like having new materials that put greater emphasis on various parts of a campaign, but I've never understood why people feel hamstrung by such things; just ignore it and move on. 



> _That is acceptable. _




I'm glad.



> _Then I apologize if I misunderstood. _[/qote]
> 
> Don't worry about it. That sort of thing happens in the heat of a vigorous debate.
> 
> ...


----------



## the Jester (Aug 22, 2010)

Re: Greenwood's creepiness- while I agree with those that say he's pretty icky from all accounts that I've heard (including some first-hand ones of some ladies), I don't hold that against his work as a whole.

HOWEVER, since it seems like he can't consistently keep his ickiness out of his work, I do hold it against those pieces of his work that have the creep-ick factor in them. (The aforementioned DotU "Hey lookit my hot Drow babe in a pool" moment is a great example.) And it certainly doesn't improve my opinion of his writing, design or dming skills.

Don't get me wrong; I've got nothing against sex in game. There's prolly more of it imc than in the vast majority of campaigns. But I don't feel the need to use my DMPC as an ego stroke and publish it for all the world to see, and I find Greenwood's tendency to do that to be... well... icky.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Aug 22, 2010)

A good looking scantily clad babe in a pool is creepy?


----------



## Psion (Aug 22, 2010)

Diamond Cross said:


> A good looking scantily clad babe in a pool is creepy?




Since a _real_ drow maiden is probably concealing a dagger of venom or a horde of water spiders or something under the surface, _scary_ might be a better term.

In Ed's fantasy, drow maidens aren't scary, but horny. It's the fact that you are in Ed's fantasy that's _creepy_.


----------



## Cor_Malek (Aug 22, 2010)

Oh man, I get this feelings that if some folks were to read Red Dragon, they would feel compelled to burn the book quite fast. And poor old Harris shortly thereafter, possibly interrupting him cooking.

Besides - porn, anyone? In a book you at least only read about faint idea *of* intercourse as opposed to actually watching it, apparently rarely being creeped out about who's and by whom performed fantasy it is. And with no offence meant, but many (most?) fantasy books (and thrillers, detective stories and the lot) need to boost themself with some well-placed literary erotica, and much like with cigarettes, let's not kid ourselves at what age-group those are aimed at.

As to coming as icky to the ladies. Well, put same words in mouth elder, silver-haired man with long beard and a muscular, savvy actor, and let's see if both would be called creepy. Just sayin'.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Aug 22, 2010)

Psion said:


> Maybe I haven't sufficiently clarified what my objection here is. It's not that there are sexual aspects to the setting (for sufficiently mature audiences), but that little things like this come across as Ed's way of using authorial authority to insert himself in conjured sexual boasts via uber-GMPC, and I find it extremely cheesy in a "nobody over 15 should be doing this" way. Not only does Ed find it convenient and amusing to introduce us to Elminster from poolside with his nubile drow babe, but he's friends with all the hawt sorceresses of the realm. Oh yeah, and he had a fling with the goddess of magic.




See, I still have a concern about that.  You're making the following assumptions.


Elminster is a direct wish-fullfilment persona for Ed Greenwood.
The character of Elmister gives you psychological insight into the mind of Mr Greenwood.
A lot of commentary seems to come from the over-use of Elminster.  Do people look at Volo the same way?  I see a lot of people making comments based on minor appearances of the character but not based on some of the more interesting novels.
It seems people are judging this from the stereotypical "nerd" view that all DMs and Players are just engaing in power-fantasies and don't get laid in real life. I don't think we'd be judging Ed Greenwood as much if he wasn't writing for games, as I've seen more pruient content in a Piers Anthony novel than I ever saw in any of Ed's fiction.


----------



## AllisterH (Aug 22, 2010)

Pantheon:

Very interesting discussion about the pantheon....and I should admit outright that I've not a fan of EITHER GH or FR.

However, I do take issue with the idea that the gods of magic and adventuring aren't front and center.

Magic in the typical fantasy work is akin to the weather and pretty much all nature deities were damn important in their respective mythologies in the real world.

Gods of agic being front and center? Don't have a problem with that....


----------



## Set (Aug 22, 2010)

My rabid enthusiasm for the Realms pretty much dragged my friends (who were into Greyhawk or Dragonlance, mostly) kicking and screaming into this setting for years.

And then the Time of Troubles came around and, for me, pretty much kicked my enthusiasm right in the jiblets.  (One player was heavily invested into his Cleric of Lleira, and I could house-rule that his goddess hadn't been dragged into a van by the god of lies and murder with an offer of yummy candy and then ganked, but my attempts at house-ruling an updated 2nd edition version with spheres and whatnot didn't really do anything other than cause everyone else to want house-ruled customized stuff, and house-rule-creep set in...)

By then, consensus had settled on Greyhawk as being strongly preferred over Dragonlance, and so we went back to Greyhawk, with the Greyhawk fans among my gaming group graciously conceding that my Realms games had been fun, but the official setting had been dragged off-course by the novels and meta-events.

Reading about the Spellplague / Abeir thing, I just get a wistful smile.  Ah, sweet Realms, still doing your best to make it *your* world, and not *our* world.  I like a lot of the mechanical and fiddly thought that went into 4th edition (even if I prefer what it replaced), but wow, the FR update was right up there with the 'New WoD' and Star Wars Galaxies 'New Game Experience' for 'updates' that made a game smaller and less compelling.

Still, Kara-Tur and Zakhara remains two of my favorite (sub)settings for D&D of all time (with the Scarred Lands and Freeport coming up behind), so there are at least *parts* of the Realms I still would play in, had the owners of those settings ever bothered to update them to 3rd edition.


----------



## Psion (Aug 22, 2010)

JohnRTroy said:


> See, I still have a concern about that.  You're making the following assumptions.
> (...)
> 
> The character of Elmister gives you psychological insight into the mind of Mr Greenwood.




No, I have more true to life anecdotes to base that on.  This really has little to do with my acceptance of the Realms, however.



> A lot of commentary seems to come from the over-use of Elminster.  Do people look at Volo the same way?  I see a lot of people making comments based on minor appearances of the character but not based on some of the more interesting novels.




Is this still a response to me? Volo really doesn't bug me, but maybe I don't recall the cheesy author insertion ego-wank in Volo writings the way I do Elminster.



> It seems people are judging this from the stereotypical "nerd" view that all DMs and Players are just engaing in power-fantasies and don't get laid in real life. I don't think we'd be judging Ed Greenwood as much if he wasn't writing for games, as I've seen more pruient content in a Piers Anthony novel than I ever saw in any of Ed's fiction.




I just got done saying it wasn't the content itself that bugged me, it was the ego-stroking. When a character in a fantasy novel "gets some", it's okay, because the novel is about the character.

A roleplaying game in the Realms shouldn't be _about_ Elminster. It should be about the PCs. So I find pap like the aforementioned "Elminster is a stag" stories obnoxious.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Aug 22, 2010)

Psion said:


> Since a _real_ drow maiden is probably concealing a dagger of venom or a horde of water spiders or something under the surface, _scary_ might be a better term.
> 
> In Ed's fantasy, drow maidens aren't scary, but horny. It's the fact that you are in Ed's fantasy that's _creepy_.





Psst, stop winking at me.

when a guy winks at another guy that's creeeeeeeeeepy.


----------



## Primal (Aug 22, 2010)

Psion said:


> Maybe I haven't sufficiently clarified what my objection here is. It's not that there are sexual aspects to the setting (for sufficiently mature audiences), but that little things like this come across as Ed's way of using authorial authority to insert himself in conjured sexual boasts via uber-GMPC, and I find it extremely cheesy in a "nobody over 15 should be doing this" way. Not only does Ed find it convenient and amusing to introduce us to Elminster from poolside with his nubile drow babe, but he's friends with all the hawt sorceresses of the realm. Oh yeah, and he had a fling with the goddess of magic.
> 
> It's almost as if "Joey Fusco Jr." from While You Were Sleeping took up running and writing RPGs and randomly inserted in his cliche accent "You meet this hot sorceress. By the way, yeah, I'm doin' her!"




As John already said, it'd better not to presume to know a man's mind based on fantasy fiction he wrote; I know some authors whose books include a lot of sexual perversions and pretty icky characters, and still they're normal and nice people. I also thought it was pretty much common knowledge that if Ed had had his way, Elminster would not have been as prominent in Realmslore or FR fiction. Ed has himself repeatedly said that Elminster is not his fantasy Alter Ego or anything.

Sheesh. We don't make prejudiced and insulting presumptions about each other's personal lives based on what we post -- let's not do so to authors or designers we don't personally know, either.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Aug 22, 2010)

> A roleplaying game in the Realms shouldn't be about Elminster. It should be about the PCs. So I find pap like the aforementioned "Elminster is a stag" stories obnoxious.




Part of the problem is the double-standard RPGs have over fiction.  The way TSR treated the realms, it was both a game and novel experience.  Also, Greenwood has stated he used it as a world to write stories in before adding an RPG campaign to it.

I sometimes think people judge the RPG setting harsher than fiction.  If we replaced Elminster with either Gandalf or Merlin, nobody bats an eye, but if a standard trope of a really powerful and charismatic wizard is used in a RPG, it's like "ZOMG, he's more powerful than our characters, the writer must be living out his fantasies and forcing his ego upon us.

Now, it's okay to debate that the RPG campaign shouldn't be overshadowed by fiction and metaplot, and I understand the excesses of the past.  But I really draw the line at stating that the realms are flaws because Mr. Greenwood has character flaws or anything like that, or the same thing of R.A. Salvatore and Drizz't.  

One thing that really bugs me about this is that perception sort of becomes reality.  All the people who said stuff about "Scrappy Doo ruined Scooby Doo" did never really study the history of the character or the provable fact (due to ratings) that the character contributed to the popularity of the show and helped keep the show on the air--yet because of a vocal minority, they did things like make him the villain in the live action movie.

Anyway, I don't mind criticism, just as long as it stops short of making inferences to the motivations or psychology of the people doing the writing.


----------



## AllisterH (Aug 22, 2010)

JohnRTroy said:


> One thing that really bugs me about this is that perception sort of becomes reality.  All the people who said stuff about "Scrappy Doo ruined Scooby Doo" did never really study the history of the character or the provable fact (due to ratings) that the character contributed to the popularity of the show and helped keep the show on the air--yet because of a vocal minority, they did things like make him the villain in the live action movie.
> 
> .




I think you might like this page.

Mark Evanier's Scrappy days

A Defense of Scrappy


----------



## Afrodyte (Aug 22, 2010)

I'll be honest and say that my reasons for disliking Forgotten Realms are not at all logical or rational. They don't make sense. If Chewbacca lives on Endor, I don't like Forgotten Realms.

Personally, I'm just bored with it. It's become too familiar, too quantified, and this doesn't evoke wonder or mystery. There's so much information out there that there are too many ways to do the Realms "wrong," but few to do them "right" in a way I enjoy.

Generally, I prefer campaign setting concepts over fully detailed settings. This is why I love 4e's Points of Light concept so much. There are a variety of ways to do it "right" that don't require me to memorize minutiae that I probably won't be interested in, let alone use.


----------



## Psion (Aug 22, 2010)

JohnRTroy said:


> Part of the problem is the double-standard RPGs have over fiction.  The way TSR treated the realms, it was both a game and novel experience.  Also, Greenwood has stated he used it as a world to write stories in before adding an RPG campaign to it.




That may well be the source of the problem as I perceive it. It wouldn't be the only RPG line, in my estimation, to be made lesser by pairing it with a novel property. I still weep over major conflicts of the Dark Sun being resolved in one novel series.



> I sometimes think people judge the RPG setting harsher than fiction.  If we replaced Elminster with either Gandalf or Merlin, nobody bats an eye, but if a standard trope of a really powerful and charismatic wizard is used in a RPG, it's like "ZOMG, he's more powerful than our characters, the writer must be living out his fantasies and forcing his ego upon us.




Hmmm. Interesting claim to examine in retrospect. I think if you go back and look at my review of "Legends of Excalibur", you'll find one of my specific criticisms was that the author set the level of central characters from the legends (like Merlin) way into the epic levels, whereas I felt that players play a game based on fiction or legend want to emulate characters like those in the legend/fiction.

In a similar vein, if you have search capability (or a long memory), you might recall some criticism over the Star Wars RPG ad campaign where it points at a guy in the Hoth lineup saying "what's his story?"

I think it's natural for RPG designers and players to equate RPG conventions to literary ones. But I think that one of the major differences is the portrayal of the protagonists in the respective mediums, and this gets missed by a lot of designers, to the detriment of their games.

As a side note, the author-insertion character in LotR was typically identified as Tom Bombadil, not Gandalf. 



> Now, it's okay to debate that the RPG campaign shouldn't be overshadowed by fiction and metaplot, and I understand the excesses of the past.  But I really draw the line at stating that the realms are flaws because Mr. Greenwood has character flaws or anything like that, or the same thing of R.A. Salvatore and Drizz't.




And I, for one, am not saying that. Whether he says something shameless and blush-inducing to young ladies at a convention is one thing, which really doesn't impact the quality of the line.

But the presentation of Elminster in FR RPG products does, for me, impact the quality of the line. As I said, I find it obnoxious and childish.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Aug 22, 2010)

There is no such thing as a fully detailed setting. I don't understand where this misinformation comes from.

A lot of information for a setting does not mean it is absolutely fully detailed.


----------



## Aldarc (Aug 22, 2010)

Alzrius said:


> I really don't see how you think that was mockery to suggest that you might be an alternate name for Celebrim. Also, the size of the forum is an irrelevant point - we've had individuals here with over ten different user names, posting as different people. Finally, it wasn't just that you two share points of agreement, as I noted previously.
> 
> Calling it cheap rhetorical baiting is itself cheap rhetorical baiting. Please stop engaging in it.



Except I posted prior to Celebrim disappearing. My points are different from Celebrim in other matters as well. I will drop this, but I hope that you would be able to see how disrespectful it is to make this accusation and how personally insulting it was to me. 



> The historical perception and the fantasy perception are not at all equivalent - the former is a matter of faith, the latter is a matter of fact. People might have believed that the gods walked among them and such, but that didn't make it any more true than believing that the sun revolved around the Earth made that true.



For the ancient world, the existence of the gods was a matter of fact and not faith. Do you deny the destruction of the storm? You have denied the wrath of Zeus and Poseidon. They saw the hand of the gods in everything and everyday life. They believed the gods walked among them. It does not make it true, but as far as their perceptions of the world, it was the same as that of Forgotten Realms. It is not about fact, but the worldview. 



> Even overlooking the relative nature of "exploring the full implications" of something, it does have believability and internal consistency, because we see the gods there as active players in the world, shaping it and where it goes instead of passively sitting back and being shaped by it.



So to did the gods of our historical past, or at least how people saw them. 



> You do realize that you just trailed off in the middle of a



It must have cut off. There was not much left in that thought though. Just that they do not behave as a pantheon. 



> I did read your restatement, though it doesn't seem as though you can say the same thing for mine. It's not dismissive to characterize such notations as bringing almost nothing to the setting, because they're not actually presenting us with very much at all - you're reading into them to find more myths and backstory, which is fine for you, but that's the DM writing more material into the world; it's not the material standing on its own.



And if all I wanted was the "notation" then you would have a point, but that is not as I have tried explaining to you before. I am merely telling you that you underestimate the value of this notation and its implications. Berna, as I am sure you looked up, did have myths to her name that did involve some of these meager "notations." 



> I'm less concerned with how much material is needed for good characterization than I am with having good characterization at all. I simply find that, given more opportunities over time, characters tend to develop more. It's fine if a character isn't well-developed right from the start, because later materials can step up and fill in the gaps. What I don't understand is why you seem so intent on disliking anything that doesn't do that right out of the gate.



Because one is all you need, and I do not want have to repeatedly buy additional sourcebooks and novels for the potential of small snippets of character development, though you may beg to differ with your MORE MORE MORE approach. 



> Pushing the burden of development onto the DM is not, however, the mark of good material. *Good material presents the DM with developed characters to begin with,* rather than failing to do so and leaving the DM to fill in the blanks.



And I do not believe that the deities are well-developed in FR. What development there is in FR feels lackluster and motivated not by character development. You may not like that freedom, but I as a DM do like that, as do others, and that does not make it bad material. It makes it material that is not to your preferences. If you do not want mystery, then FR is the setting for you. You need MORE MORE MORE. I prefer just enough to get my imagination going and to know how to use well. These different styles are all the more suggestive that Forgotten Realms is not for everyone. 



> "Sufficient" development - a nebulous term if ever there was one - is more than just noting a few familial relations. And FR's divine changes couldn't really be called "constantly shuffling the pantheonic deck." Beyond the Time of Troubles, there's only the Spellplague (which I certainly think was unnecessary) that constitutes any major pantheon-wide changes. The rest is happenstances for individual deities or small groups of individuals.



It is no more nebulous than anything else we are talking about. "Sufficient" is exactly that, "sufficient" enough for the use of the DMs and players. Is it any more nebulous than "good character development"? The Time of Troubles struck me as completely ridiculous and nonsensical from start to finish. I saw that as anything but good character development. The entire matter was almost a farse. And it also introduced the terrible character of Cyric. Then there was the Spellplague, which you yourself admit was unnecessary. There were three pantheons between four editions. How many times do you need to kill the goddess of magic? The Time of Troubles and the Spellplague effectively kicked many players and DMs in the balls and ran running. 



> As numerous others have pointed out, canon-lawyers have only as much power as the DM allows them to have. It's hardly fair to say that the novels actually detract from a setting because they arm these canon-lawyers at the expense of the DM.



I am not sure if that's hardly fair when other people in this thread have expressed their own issues involving exactly that problem. Furthermore, the quality of those novels does detract from the setting for me. I personally cannot stand the Forgotten Realms novels. They, along with the Dragonlance novels, represent some of the most pastiche, poorly-written, cliche, fantasy dribble created. And these qualities just ooze all over the setting. 



> I should also add that, from what I know of your position, I disagree with it and am attempting to explain why.



Nothing is stopping you from disagreeing with my preferences. But I am not sure what purpose it solves in this thread. I dislike Forgotten Realms as it does not live up to my preferences for a setting. What is there to disagree with? Do you disagree that it does not meet my personal preferences? Do you disagree that it has qualities that are not to my liking? What can you possibly say that will make me change my mind? 



> One's estimation is a personal thing, but I think they have been - if only from showing us various facets of the major deities again and again in various materials, we've seen them in various situations, showing various sides to their characters. How is that not development?
> 
> Again, it's not like the pantheon is undergoing major changes every year. _Crucible: The Trial of Cyric the Mad_ did a great job showcasing deities like Cyric, Mystra, and Kelemvor changing without changing the composition of the pantheon.



Again, I find this somewhat debatable as to whether or not the deities were showcased well. And keep in mind that not all character development is good character development. Plus, in order to see this character development, one has to invest in the novels and additional sourcebooks, but the sourcebooks reference the novels. Where is that good character development from the get-go? 



> I agree; which is kind of why I wish you'd stop making the point that expansion materials constitute a threat to the DM.



The expansion material in the form of setting sorucebooks are not the problem though. I am telling you that I dislike the "World as Written," the canonical world. DMs can change bits and pieces here and there, but it does not change this canonical world. And when the canonical world changes every edition, then these complications are compounded and conflated by the constant reordering of the canon. But to me, the canonical setting is so lackluster to my tastes that I have no urge to rewrite it at all. It lacks any theme or setting unity. It is a generic mishmash, and its reception history as a setting supports this assertion. The Grey Box had plenty of potential as a setting, but I am still waiting for this potential, just like I am waiting for this good character development in the pantheon. 



> I wouldn't say it's served you very well. You've made it clear that you want fantasy deities to be just like historical pantheons from the real world. That's fine, but it goes against the grain for most campaign world's sense of internal consistency - historical pantheons evolved the way they did because they didn't actually exist to make active changes. Fantasy pantheons actually exist, in the context of the game world, and so of course will be different in their conduct.



Historical pantheons do not go against the grain of most campaign world's internal consistency. This is a bogus claim, because it presumes that most campaigns have deities that behave as they do in Forgotten Realms. The Sovereign Host exists (though it is more ambiguous), but they do not behave as they do in FR. Please take a look at Book of the Righteous so you can know exactly what I am talking about. The book is highly lauded as one of the best d20 products. And it very much proves that active, living deities that mirror historical pantheons does not go against the grain of most campaign worlds. It does not invalidate internal consistency or believability. 



> That's all well and good, but it's hardly merit for claiming that active deities - or at least those not done "right and well" - are poorly developed. Especially since you seem to be of the opinion that "right and well" consists of active deities being as inactive as possible.



You wanted to know my preferences? Now I have told you, but it not meant to merit anything against poorly developed active deities. Though I will say that activity takes many forms, and not all of them are overt as they are in FR.  



> I don't think the reduction of the pantheon in 4E necessarily had anything to do with the nature of the deities' development in 3E - they simply wanted to reduce the numbers for the sake of simplicity, true, but how they as characters had been portrayed didn't affect that that I can see.



From the FR Wiki: "Tyr was originally intended to be a greater god in the 4th edition pantheon of the Realms but was removed in mid-development and replaced with Torm, mainly due to fan reactions towards Tyr's slaying of Helm in The Grand History of the Realms." 

Again, "they simply wanted to reduce the numbers for the sake of simplicity" is an acknowledgment of how the decision was motivated not by characterization but by notation and bookkeeping. 



> The term is largely used in the current vernacular as a colloquialism for those who are trying to smooth over something that is unpalatable, offensive, or gauche. None of which is the case here.



But not in my vernacular.


----------



## AllisterH (Aug 22, 2010)

I'm not sure the argument that "there is no consistency to the pantheon" is a valid argument.

Mainly due to the fact that the pantheon in the Realms has never been static. From my understanding of the Realms, there are actually only *3* deities from the original pantheon itself.

Selune, Shar and Chauntea. Everyone else from Bane to Lathander was either an interloper who was absorbed into the pantheon (Meilikki), a reborn version of a former deity (Lathander) or a mortal that took over a portfolio (Bane, Kelemevor etc).

I honestly think it actually makes sense that the Fr pantheon is so well, not "soap operaish" given the fact that most AREN'T related to one another.

Selune, Shar and Chauntea are to my knowledge, the nnly ones directly related to one another...


----------



## Aldarc (Aug 23, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> I'm not sure the argument that "there is no consistency to the pantheon" is a valid argument.
> 
> Mainly due to the fact that the pantheon in the Realms has never been static. From my understanding of the Realms, there are actually only *3* deities from the original pantheon itself.
> 
> ...



I would say that the enormous amount of interloper deities violates the consistency of the pantheon. They are interlopers, but from where? Other worlds? From real world pantheons? That in itself violates believability for me. If Erathis suddenly showed up, nothing would really change about the realms. It would just be another notation, another set of portfolios, though some portfolios may get traded around like trading cards.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Aug 23, 2010)

JohnRTroy said:


> [*]A lot of commentary seems to come from the over-use of Elminster.  Do people look at Volo the same way?  I see a lot of people making comments based on minor appearances of the character but not based on some of the more interesting novels.




When Volo has triple the intelligence (not in-game score, but more like IQ score) than any PC, can cast _teleport_ and _Elminster's Evasion_, has a massive near-omniscient spy network and is protected by the good-aligned goddess of magic that he used to sleep with, _then_ I'll complain he's overused.


----------



## Primal (Aug 23, 2010)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:


> When Volo has triple the intelligence (not in-game score, but more like IQ score) than any PC, can cast _teleport_ and _Elminster's Evasion_, has a massive near-omniscient spy network and is protected by the good-aligned goddess of magic that he used to sleep with, _then_ I'll complain he's overused.




Do I understand correctly that you define any NPC more powerful than the PCs as "overused"?


----------



## Diamond Cross (Aug 23, 2010)

Nah, just that having too much sex with a great looking woman is overused.


----------



## Primal (Aug 23, 2010)

Aldarc said:


> I would say that the enormous amount of interloper deities violates the consistency of the pantheon. They are interlopers, but from where? Other worlds? From real world pantheons? That in itself violates believability for me. If Erathis suddenly showed up, nothing would really change about the realms. It would just be another notation, another set of portfolios, though some portfolios may get traded around like trading cards.




Well, we can blame TSR for that; I don't think the "original" Realms had Egyptean or Mesopotamean pantheons, for example. No wonder there is no overall consistency to the pantheon or even the history, if you give dozens of freelancers free reign over the setting. I think the "Lorelords" (Ed, Steven Schend, Eric Boyd and George Krashos) repaired a lot of the damage and managed to patch up the consistency pretty well before 3E came out.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Aug 23, 2010)

Primal said:


> Do I understand correctly that you define any NPC more powerful than the PCs as "overused"?




I would suggest reading the dozens of posts complaining about Elminster, instead of trying to read my mind over the internet.


----------



## AllisterH (Aug 23, 2010)

Aldarc said:


> I would say that the enormous amount of interloper deities violates the consistency of the pantheon. They are interlopers, but from where? Other worlds? From real world pantheons? That in itself violates believability for me. If Erathis suddenly showed up, nothing would really change about the realms. It would just be another notation, another set of portfolios, though some portfolios may get traded around like trading cards.




Indeed..does give off a trading card vibe as portfolios get shuffled around...

Well yeah...the number of interlopers (not just gods but entire people) is one of my pet peeves about the setting..but frankly, I acknowledge that it is part of the charm to other people and the FR material DOES acknowledge that the Realms has a higher number of portals that the "standard" D&D world.

Hell, IIRC, Waterdeep by itself has not one but TWO portals to Sigil, a portal to Oerth and maybe a few others to various planar gatetowns.


----------



## Stoat (Aug 23, 2010)

Primal said:


> Well, we can blame TSR for that; I don't think the "original" Realms had Egyptean or Mesopotamean pantheons, for example.




I've seen several posters make this point or one similar.  But so what?  I a person doesn't like some aspect of the Realms, what does it matter where the fault lies?

Take the name "Fzoul Chembryl." (please)  I don't care if it was cooked up by Ed Greenwood or some third-string freelancer or the vengeful ghost Lorraine Williams.  What I care about is that it's a stupid, silly unpronounceable name.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 23, 2010)

Psion said:


> Of Sues Best Unspoken - RPGnet Forums






Hella_Tellah said:


> Man, if that counts as perverted, count me among the most vile and debased gamers around. Most of my games are around DC Vertigo level of Mature, because real people do fun stuff without clothes sometimes. We don't describe things as they happen at the table, because, well, _eww_, but certainly I've had background plot points in my settings that could compete with that example.




Just read the linked-to post, and yeah--squick. Not because of the sexual content, but the stuff surrounding it. Alustriel is super-available, has no nudity taboo, and likes having her anatomy commented on. The Goddess of Magic is perpetually pregnant but stays slender and hawt at all times. The whole thing reads like a horny 14-year-old male's personal fantasy world. I'll concede that we should not cast aspersions on the author--maybe Mr. Greenwood was making a sociopolitical statement, or something--but regardless of what he had in mind when he wrote it, reading it is enough to make me want to take a shower.

This is a fairly small part of my dislike of the Realms, though, since it's not in any of the official material that I know of. It's just the slimy cherry on top of a sundae of bland derivative fantasy, sprinkled with chopped overpowered NPCs and drizzled in thematic incoherence.



JohnRTroy said:


> It seems people are judging this from the stereotypical "nerd" view that all DMs and Players are just engaing in power-fantasies and don't get laid in real life. I don't think we'd be judging Ed Greenwood as much if he wasn't writing for games, as I've seen more pruient content in a Piers Anthony novel than I ever saw in any of Ed's fiction.




Wait... you're using _Piers Anthony_ as a counter-example? Thinking about _his_ stuff makes me want to shower with bleach and a sandblaster.


----------



## Nymrohd (Aug 23, 2010)

Aldarc said:


> I would say that the enormous amount of interloper  deities violates the consistency of the pantheon. They are interlopers,  but from where? Other worlds? From real world pantheons? That in itself  violates believability for me. If Erathis suddenly showed up, nothing  would really change about the realms. It would just be another notation,  another set of portfolios, though some portfolios may get traded around  like trading cards.




Other worlds. In 2E the multiverse was vast with multiple prime material  worlds. The interloper deities were largely multispheric deities  worshipped in more than one crystal sphere; they simply chose to expand  their sphere of influence to Toril since belief=power as explained in  Planescape supplements. Moreover many of the current people of Faerun  were actually not people of Faerun; the elves, dwarves, grey orcs,  likely the gnomes and multiple human populations (the Calishites both  human and halfling, the Untheri and Mulhorandi) are all transplanted or  invading populations from a different crystal sphere that also brought  with them the worship of their deities.

Moreover the many human populations of Toril created their own pantheons  over tens of thousands of years. Human were one of the creator races of  faerun, present since the time of the Sarrukh and spread over the  supercontinent and later continents with little contact. Yet it is  documented that they all worshipped hosts of tribal spirits and  possessed at least a semplance of divine and arcane lore (the  compilation and codification of such lore being in part the nether  scrolls). Within tens of thousands of years many of those divinities  became part of small local pantheons. Spheres of influence of these  pantheons; primarily the Illuskan, Tethyrian, Chondathan and Netherese  ones were restricted in the location of their worshippers beyond the few  common deities across pantheons that were there since the creation of  the world (Chauntea, Shar, Selune and several deities that were created  as a result of Shar and Selune's war such as Mystryl but also Tempus and  others).

I would allege that the many diverse pantheons did not dissolve the  boundaries of their spheres of influence until relatively recently in FR  history as a result of the Dawn Cataclysm and Lathander's machinations.  Likely those sphere had been dilluted earlier still because of the many  human migration waves, particularly of the netherese and chondathan  peoples, the latter of which had a tradition of religious missionaries.


----------



## ProtoClone (Aug 23, 2010)

Too much _awesomeness_ that it ceased being awesome.


----------



## Hella_Tellah (Aug 23, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> Wait... you're using _Piers Anthony_ as a counter-example? Thinking about _his_ stuff makes me want to shower with bleach and a sandblaster.




Be sure to steer clear of Robert Heinlein, then!


----------



## Celebrim (Aug 23, 2010)

After three days camping and away from the computer, topics which formerly seemed pressing and interesting to discuss seem far less interesting.  This is especially true when the topic seems to have drifted into areas you aren't comfortable discussing given how uncomfortable you were with how close bashing another DM's work comes to bashing the person to begin with.

However, I do wish to risk a meta-comment on the thread itself.

In this thread people were asked to give an opinion.  Whether you like something or not is inherently an opinion.  You can't prove the validity of your own likes and dislikes, and you can't disprove the validity of someone elses.  

I tend to have strong opinions and I tend to I think support them.  I don't expect everyone to like what I like, but I generally act as if I could at least get people to understand and empathize with my likes or dislikes - though in fact, I know that from experience you can't even manage that.   Because of my strong opinions, I tend to attract conflict from those that are equally opinated and equally sure of the validity of their own opinions.  A number of such people attempted to say that I was wrong on the grounds that I had misperceptions.  Initially in this thread, I thought I could show those people that my opinions weren't grounded in misperceptions but merely different perceptions, and that with a few exceptions (I really did believe Drizzt had been someone's PC at some time, because he reads like one and because I thought I'd heard that before, although in my defence I'll say that this appears to be a common misperception) everything that they described as a 'misperception' was exactly what I had described viewed from a different angle.  However, the more I argued, the more it became clear that certain other posters simply could not accept that people would percieve things differently than they did.   I was repeatedly challenged to give some basis for my opinion, which I think I did, but was repeatedly told that this basis was 'insufficient' or yet another 'misperception'.

I have been accused of using 'sock puppets' in this thread.  I presume the accuser does not realize how serious that charge is, as IMO the use of sock puppets constitutes a fundamental violation of internet ethics.  I welcome any scutiny over whether I'm using sock puppets from the admins.  I believe no examples of impropriety will be found, and I'm certain I've never used any other account to post to EnWorld than this one.  What I find interesting is that the accusation - like many such accusations - I think reveals more about the accuser than it reveals about me.  If you believe that my opinions are just completely off the wall, then obviously if you see anyone else holding a similar opinion, it must be that that other person is actually me.  It couldn't possibly be that my opinions aren't actually so completely baseless and off the wall as you'd like to insist, right?


----------



## Primal (Aug 23, 2010)

Stoat said:


> I've seen several posters make this point or one similar.  But so what?  I a person doesn't like some aspect of the Realms, what does it matter where the fault lies?




In the end, it doesn't; it's just that it's not fair to heap blame on Ed, when he has very little to do with this particular aspect of the Realms.



> Take the name "Fzoul Chembryl." (please)  I don't care if it was cooked up by Ed Greenwood or some third-string freelancer or the vengeful ghost Lorraine Williams.  What I care about is that it's a stupid, silly unpronounceable name.




Fzoul is an original NPC created by Ed. And I just love those FR names. No matter how weird or "unpronounceable", I think Fzoul or Khelben or Manshoon or Aubaerus are vastly better names than what I see in 99% of fantasy fiction and RPG products (not to mention the titles that feature RW names). At least there's a unique feel to them. But that's just my opinion.


----------



## Philosopher (Aug 23, 2010)

I have a question for those who say the Realms is bland. What do you consider more interesting? Describe how your favourite campaign setting (or your own homebrew) doesn't have the same flaws as the Realms. I'm asking because I'm genuinely curious about what people _do_ find interesting. That may help in understanding why people dislike the Realms. So I sort of have the same question as the OP, but I'd like a positive description of what would be good rather than merely a criticism of the Realms. What are some _concrete examples_ of things the Realms lack? (Some people have already done this to an extent, but I wanted to make it more explicit to hear from others.)


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 23, 2010)

Philosopher said:


> I have a question for those who say the Realms is bland. What do you consider more interesting? Describe how your favourite campaign setting (or your own homebrew) doesn't have the same flaws as the Realms. I'm asking because I'm genuinely curious about what people _do_ find interesting. That may help in understanding why people dislike the Realms. So I sort of have the same question as the OP, but I'd like a positive description of what would be good rather than merely a criticism of the Realms. What are some _concrete examples_ of things the Realms lack? (Some people have already done this to an extent, but I wanted to make it more explicit to hear from others.)




Mainly it's a matter of having a coherent theme and flavor that define the setting.

Dark Sun is an excellent example. The theme of Dark Sun is a brutal struggle for life in a dying world, where the tradeoffs people make to survive only hasten the downward spiral. All sorts of elements feed into that theme. You have city-states where tyrant sorceror-kings offer protection and subsistence in exchange for abject servitude. You have arenas where gladiators kill each other to pacify the masses. You have desperate shortages of water, metal, food, knowledge. You have magic that rips the very life from the earth.

(It's noteworthy that the Prism Pentad and the revised boxed set shifted Dark Sun away from this theme and toward a more traditional save-the-world epic fantasy, which is part of why those changes were so reviled.)

Or take Planescape. In Planescape, the dominant theme is philosophy-as-physical-reality; the way you view the world shapes the world. On the most basic level, there's the Great Wheel of the planes, in which each alignment is embodied as a vast planar realm. Then on top of that are the factions, groups of fanatical philosophers with powers that arise from those philosophies. All of this comes together in Sigil, where the Lady of Pain creates a kind of neutral zone for planar beings and faction members to engage one another without waging all-out war.

My current homebrew setting is an ice age world, where the slow advance of winter is dooming civilization. I'm actually not satisfied with the way that theme has played out in the campaign; I included too many cookie-cutter D&D-isms and let myself drift into a rather generic plotline. Were I to do it over again, I would scrap a lot of the standard elements and focus a lot more on the hazards of the environment and the threats posed by hunger and cold.


----------



## Barastrondo (Aug 23, 2010)

Philosopher said:


> I have a question for those who say the Realms is bland. What do you consider more interesting? Describe how your favourite campaign setting (or your own homebrew) doesn't have the same flaws as the Realms. I'm asking because I'm genuinely curious about what people _do_ find interesting. That may help in understanding why people dislike the Realms. So I sort of have the same question as the OP, but I'd like a positive description of what would be good rather than merely a criticism of the Realms. What are some _concrete examples_ of things the Realms lack? (Some people have already done this to an extent, but I wanted to make it more explicit to hear from others.)




I think any homebrew would include "personalization" and "investment" as things that any published setting would lack. Even if a game would appear little different from the FR to a truly independent observer, those two things change the enjoyment level intensely.

To reiterate, I've nothing against the Realms; I simply prefer homebrew, and make some different choices. But if specific points of variation are useful data, then:

- More focus on the martial, less focus on the arcane. Wizards and their ilk can be interesting characters for sure, but overall they have no particular positions of prominence in the overall setting's themes.

- Deities draw power from what they represent, not from worship. The god of justice grows stronger if abject agnostics or even atheists act to further justice, or grows weaker if zealous worshippers spread injustice throughout the land and call it "justice."

- No deities of mortal origin. Purely personal preference. 

- Not as much emphasis on some of the more gently romantic thematic elements. Elves and cats and silver and moonlight and bardic music and things like that. I totally respect their inclusion, and am not trying to be contemptuous here: I think it's awesome that a fantasy world can go for that romantic side. But most of my players (including my wife) are more dwarf-metal or gnoll-tribal than elf-lyricism at heart.

- More customized monster palettes. I don't really use beholders, mind flayers or drow, for instance, and I like "gnome" to mean "earth elemental."


----------



## Aldarc (Aug 23, 2010)

Nymrohd said:


> Other worlds. In 2E the multiverse was vast with multiple prime material  worlds. The interloper deities were largely multispheric deities  worshipped in more than one crystal sphere; they simply chose to expand  their sphere of influence to Toril since belief=power as explained in  Planescape supplements. Moreover many of the current people of Faerun  were actually not people of Faerun; the elves, dwarves, grey orcs,  likely the gnomes and multiple human populations (the Calishites both  human and halfling, the Untheri and Mulhorandi) are all transplanted or  invading populations from a different crystal sphere that also brought  with them the worship of their deities.
> 
> Moreover the many human populations of Toril created their own pantheons  over tens of thousands of years. Human were one of the creator races of  faerun, present since the time of the Sarrukh and spread over the  supercontinent and later continents with little contact. Yet it is  documented that they all worshipped hosts of tribal spirits and  possessed at least a semplance of divine and arcane lore (the  compilation and codification of such lore being in part the nether  scrolls). Within tens of thousands of years many of those divinities  became part of small local pantheons. Spheres of influence of these  pantheons; primarily the Illuskan, Tethyrian, Chondathan and Netherese  ones were restricted in the location of their worshippers beyond the few  common deities across pantheons that were there since the creation of  the world (Chauntea, Shar, Selune and several deities that were created  as a result of Shar and Selune's war such as Mystryl but also Tempus and  others).
> 
> I would allege that the many diverse pantheons did not dissolve the  boundaries of their spheres of influence until relatively recently in FR  history as a result of the Dawn Cataclysm and Lathander's machinations.  Likely those sphere had been dilluted earlier still because of the many  human migration waves, particularly of the netherese and chondathan  peoples, the latter of which had a tradition of religious missionaries.



I was actually vaguely aware of these racial migrations, and that deities came from other worlds. But that _is_ the central problem. When many of these interloper deities have been directly lifted from our real world mythology? Yeah, that invalidates my sense of believability and internal consistency.


----------



## Philosopher (Aug 23, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> Mainly it's a matter of having a coherent theme and flavor that define the setting.
> 
> Dark Sun is an excellent example. The theme of Dark Sun is a brutal struggle for life in a dying world, where the tradeoffs people make to survive only hasten the downward spiral. All sorts of elements feed into that theme. You have city-states where tyrant sorceror-kings offer protection and subsistence in exchange for abject servitude. You have arenas where gladiators kill each other to pacify the masses. You have desperate shortages of water, metal, food, knowledge. You have magic that rips the very life from the earth.
> 
> ...




Thanks, that's helpful.

Personally, while I like settings that have an overarching theme, I sometimes like settings that _don't_ have one. The real world doesn't have a single theme, so that makes the setting somewhat more "realistic". Now, I understand that "realism" may not always be desirable, so I can totally understand why some may not care for this style. But I kinda like a setting where specific locations have their own theme, even if there's no single theme for the whole setting. That way, I get to have different styles of adventure in the same world. Again, though, I can appreciate why not everyone would find this a draw.


----------



## Philosopher (Aug 23, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> I think any homebrew would include "personalization" and "investment" as things that any published setting would lack. Even if a game would appear little different from the FR to a truly independent observer, those two things change the enjoyment level intensely.
> 
> To reiterate, I've nothing against the Realms; I simply prefer homebrew, and make some different choices. But if specific points of variation are useful data, then:
> 
> ...




Very interesting. FWIW, I sometimes like exactly the sort of thing you describe, but at other times I'm in the mood for the opposite.

That raises another interesting question. How many people tend to like one specific style for all of their campaigns, and how many (like me) like to run/play in different campaigns with widely different feels? I guess those who like one specific theme may be less likely to enjoy the Realms.


----------



## Barastrondo (Aug 23, 2010)

Philosopher said:


> Very interesting. FWIW, I sometimes like exactly the sort of thing you describe, but at other times I'm in the mood for the opposite.
> 
> That raises another interesting question. How many people tend to like one specific style for all of their campaigns, and how many (like me) like to run/play in different campaigns with widely different feels? I guess those who like one specific theme may be less likely to enjoy the Realms.




Both. (Helpful, aren't I?)

The main reason I run a kitchen-sink world is that I can zoom in to any point and change the major themes of a campaign dramatically while retaining the themes of the world as a whole. I can up the incidence of wizards or elves by focusing on an area where they're more common, for instance, but I don't have to model the whole world around the idea that they're dominant. 

The things I mention above are sufficiently important to me that I prefer them in any D&D game I play, but within those parameters I'm still running three different games off and on: a swashbuckler inspired by Renaissance Italy, a weird fantasy game in a Gormenghast-like city cut off from the Outside, and a gothic horror-themed fantasy a la Ravenloft and Castlevania. I find them sufficiently different that it's delightful swapping between them, but I also enjoy the continuity that comes from them all being expressions of the same overall world.


----------



## Aldarc (Aug 23, 2010)

Philosopher said:


> Thanks, that's helpful.
> 
> Personally, while I like settings that have an overarching theme, I sometimes like settings that _don't_ have one. The real world doesn't have a single theme, so that makes the setting somewhat more "realistic". Now, I understand that "realism" may not always be desirable, so I can totally understand why some may not care for this style. But I kinda like a setting where specific locations have their own theme, even if there's no single theme for the whole setting. That way, I get to have different styles of adventure in the same world. Again, though, I can appreciate why not everyone would find this a draw.



I would expect that appeals to a number of different people for whatever reasons. I just find that settings need a particular spin that makes them unique or standout amongst others, especially other generic fantasy settings. A flavor or theme that pushes the setting forward. Eberron has different sub-themes across the planet depending upon the region and the continent, many regions often emphasizing a different style of play. But it still has over-arching themes that unify the feel and flavor of the setting. My first post in this thread answered your original question regarding the Realms lack of a unifying theme.


----------



## Nymrohd (Aug 23, 2010)

Aldarc said:


> I was actually vaguely aware of these racial migrations, and that deities came from other worlds. But that _is_ the central problem. When many of these interloper deities have been directly lifted from our real world mythology? Yeah, that invalidates my sense of believability and internal consistency.




I will not disagree. During 2E FR suffered badly when TSR starting transplanting real world cultures to Toril. Even worse, 3E did not really translate those regions. Still more, about a dozen real world pantheons were transplanted into Planescape. The thing is that with the exception of Mulhorand (who uses the Egyptian Pantheon and part of its common mythology) most of the interloper deities of Faerun are well grounded in the Realms and barely related to their real world mythos. Of course there is a matter of nomenclature which is very important in all works of fantasy. But then again FR after the grey box has always been so huge that there cannot be consistency.


----------



## Primal (Aug 23, 2010)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:


> I would suggest reading the dozens of posts complaining about Elminster, instead of trying to read my mind over the internet.




I'm well aware that many who criticize FR think that Elminster is stealing the spotlight from the PCs and/or been overused as a protagonist. However, again I want to emphasize that it was TSR's (and WoTC's) decision to use Elminster as a "figurehead" for the Realms -- I doubt Ed would have made him as prominent if it had been his call. Also, you *did* kind of imply that if Volo had Elminster's contacts and powers, that alone would make him "overused". 

You see, disliking the Realms and Elminster the character is fine by me; but when people make claims such as "Elminster is Ed Greenwood's alter ego!" or "Elminster is Ed Greenwood's DMPC!" (and I'm not saying *you* did, but others surely have on this thread), I get annoyed. What do we know of Ed's personality or his campaigns? 

If it wasn't enough, some people equate Elminster's "conquests" and implications of sex in FR novels to Ed being a lecherous pervert -- and most of them haven't even met the guy. To all such posters I wish to say this: *read a few of the most popular manga titles*; I've pretty much read all sorts of literature, but I feel uncomfortable with a lot of the stuff in them. Even many of the teenager/young adult titles seem to feature not-so-subtle implications of sex (or at least the willingness for sex) between older men and young girls -- some of which are *minors*. And this is not some obscure hardcore titles I'm talking about; for example GTO and Naruto feature such content. However, I don't think that it tells anything about the authors' own sexual preferences or fantasies, but I *do* think it makes sexual scenes and implications in FR novels seem timid in comparison.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 23, 2010)

Primal said:


> If it wasn't enough, some people equate Elminster's "conquests" and implications of sex in FR novels to Ed being a lecherous pervert -- and most of them haven't even met the guy. To all such posters I wish to say this: *read a few of the most popular manga titles*; I've pretty much read all sorts of literature, but I feel uncomfortable with a lot of the stuff in them. Even many of the teenager/young adult titles seem to feature not-so-subtle implications of sex (or at least the willingness for sex) between older men and young girls -- some of which are *minors*. And this is not some obscure hardcore titles I'm talking about; for example GTO and Naruto feature such content. However, I don't think that it tells anything about the authors' own sexual preferences or fantasies, but I *do* think it makes sexual scenes and implications in FR novels seem timid in comparison.




What is it with the weird equivalences? First Piers Anthony, now manga... "The ickiness of Elminster's sex life is okay because this other thing is worse?"

You should at least confirm that other people are _not_ repulsed by your topic of comparison before using it as an argument. In my case, I'm not a manga fan and not particularly interested in becoming one; but were I to encounter the kind of stuff you're talking about, my reaction would depend entirely on how these older man/young girl relationships are portrayed. If the portrayal is more or less realistic, then okay. If it's some creepily idealized fantasy, it may or may not be the author's personal fantasy, but even if it's not--ick.


----------



## Nymrohd (Aug 23, 2010)

Primal said:


> I'm well aware that many who criticize FR think that Elminster is stealing the spotlight from the PCs and/or been overused as a protagonist. However, again I want to emphasize that it was TSR's (and WoTC's) decision to use Elminster as a "figurehead" for the Realms -- I doubt Ed would have made him as prominent if it had been his call. Also, you *did* kind of imply that if Volo had Elminster's contacts and powers, that alone would make him "overused".
> 
> You see, disliking the Realms and Elminster the character is fine by me; but when people make claims such as "Elminster is Ed Greenwood's alter ego!" or "Elminster is Ed Greenwood's DMPC!" (and I'm not saying *you* did, but others surely have on this thread), I get annoyed. What do we know of Ed's personality or his campaigns?
> 
> If it wasn't enough, some people equate Elminster's "conquests" and implications of sex in FR novels to Ed being a lecherous pervert -- and most of them haven't even met the guy. To all such posters I wish to say this: *read a few of the most popular manga titles*; I've pretty much read all sorts of literature, but I feel uncomfortable with a lot of the stuff in them. Even many of the teenager/young adult titles seem to feature not-so-subtle implications of sex (or at least the willingness for sex) between older men and young girls -- some of which are *minors*. And this is not some obscure hardcore titles I'm talking about; for example GTO and Naruto feature such content. However, I don't think that it tells anything about the authors' own sexual preferences or fantasies, but I *do* think it makes sexual scenes and implications in FR novels seem timid in comparison.




Kinda have to add that we do know a lot about Ed's campaign since his players have discussed it at Candlekeep quite often. And he does use his NPCs quite liberally (Storm more than El from what I gather).


----------



## Primal (Aug 23, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> What is it with the weird equivalences? First Piers Anthony, now manga... "The ickiness of Elminster's sex life is okay because this other thing is worse?"




Well, I don't think if I would personally call Elminster's sex life "icky"; besides, no Realms novels have actually described or portrayed sex in a realistic fashion so far, at least to my knowledge. 

I threw in the comparison because I think it's a valid argument to consider contemporary literature and its phenomena -- and how they portray sex -- before judging anyone based on fiction they've written. Again, if we consider what some of the stuff what kids and young adults read these days, it makes FR novels timid in comparison. And it's not just literature; movies, games, Internet etcetera all influence our perceptions. For instance, if I were to write an essay on, say, sex in RPGs, I'd *have* to observe how sex is portrayed in other mediums of the contemporay popular cultural as well -- and how these other mediums influence and are related to RPGs. And in that context I'd say Elminster's sex life is, well, nothing spectacularly shocking (apart from the young girl/older man thing, but even that is more or less hinted at and not described vividly).

I said it before and I say it again: I've personally met authors whose books include pretty gross scenes featuring sex and violence, even though they're just ordinary people and not some sick, lecherous monsters. Look, I'm fine if someone says he/she thinks FR novels contain too much sex; however, it's not okay to claim that you don't like FR because the books reflect author X's own sexual fantasies. 



> You should at least confirm that other people are _not_ repulsed by your topic of comparison before using it as an argument. In my case, I'm not a manga fan and not particularly interested in becoming one; but were I to encounter the kind of stuff you're talking about, my reaction would depend entirely on how these older man/young girl relationships are portrayed. If the portrayal is more or less realistic, then okay. If it's some creepily idealized fantasy, it may or may not be the author's personal fantasy, but even if it's not--ick.




Pardon, but I don't get your first sentence... should I ask everyone if it's okay to talk about sex in graphic novels? Not to be condescending, but do you feel it's okay that some people may freely post about sex in FR novels and how it supposedly reflect's Ed's own sexual perversions, but I cannot post a counterargument about how sex is portrayed in contemporary comicbook industry?


----------



## Primal (Aug 23, 2010)

Nymrohd said:


> Kinda have to add that we do know a lot about Ed's campaign since his players have discussed it at Candlekeep quite often. And he does use his NPCs quite liberally (Storm more than El from what I gather).




Well, I'd hardly say "a lot"; Lady Hooded One has indeed described Ed's campaigns occasionally, but not that often. And yet (to my knowledge) she's the only player who has done so publicly. In all my years on that forum I've seen only a handful of longer descriptions featuring gameplay and plots -- it's more or less short comments (added into Ed's replies) like "We Knights have met this NPC twice, and one of these times took place at a masquerade and another time we glimpsed him flying over the rooftops of Suzail at a distance" (to give a crude example).


----------



## JohnRTroy (Aug 23, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> What is it with the weird equivalences? First Piers Anthony, now manga... "The ickiness of Elminster's sex life is okay because this other thing is worse?"




Well, speaking for myself, the reason I brought up Piers Anthony was because he is a much more respected author than a "gaming writer" like Ed Greenwood, and from what little I read of his work, he was a little more overt in sexual references than anything I read in Greenwood's novels, and I never heard Anthony attacked for that stuff.  I certainly don't think comparing one novelist to another is "weird equivalence".

And to be fair, some of this is implied rather than overtly mentioned.  The whole "opening sequence" of the FOR1 to me--at least when I read it, I never got the vibe that Elminster was in a relationship with that Drow woman, that all they were doing was talking.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Aug 23, 2010)

I'm probably going to be dog piled for this: because they aren't forgotten. To go into more detail: because most "Clueless" quotes in Planescape came from Toril. And even before I realized PS suffered from it too: over developed.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Aug 23, 2010)

I still want to know how having a detailed setting becomes fully detailed and extremely restrictive to creativity.

There is no such thing as fully detailed. No setting restricts a person's creativity.

Because if it were fully detailed, the Realms would fill up dozens of reams of paper.

For example, with Waterdeep large portions of it are empty for DMs to put what buildings they want there. If it were fully detailed it would be:

Each and every single building
Each and every single person inside the building
An illustration of the building
An illustration of each and every single person in the building.
Each and every single item in the building, from the most mundane to the most magical.
An illustration of each and every single item.
Each and every single piece of clothing.
Each and every single piece of furniture .
An illustration of each and every single piece of clothing and furniture.
Every single item that has been misplaced and where it is misplace.
The color of every single item piece of furniture, and clothing.
And all inscriptions on what piece of item, including details such as this is a salad fork and this fork was made to be used with the main course.
Who each of the craftsmen were who made each and every single one of those items.
How many articles of clothing for each person within the building. The color of the clothes.
Jewelry.
Each and every single hiding space and nook and cranny.
Stats for all people within the building.
Five page histories for each people in the buildings, including newborn children less than a few days old.
The architecture of the building.
The paint of the building.
The art of the building (such as gargoyle heads) and each of the artisans who made them where the artisans are located, even in another country, and their stats.
The paint of the building, who made the paint, who painted the building.
The enchantments in or on the building, and the people, and each and every single item.
The lawn and the grounds around the building.


And all of this full details for each and every single building in Waterdeep.

Oh, and of course there must be the disclaimer:

You do not have any permission to change any single detail on any single page. Doing so is a breach of copyright protection laws.

The FBI and Interpol investigates all claims of copyright laws and any violation requires a mandatory ten years in jail per violation and a $50,000 per violation.


So how does a detailed setting restrict creativity?


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 23, 2010)

Primal said:


> Look, I'm fine if someone says he/she thinks FR novels contain too much sex; however, it's not okay to claim that you don't like FR because the books reflect author X's own sexual fantasies.




I've pulled back from making from that particular claim, since other people have made the legitimate point that Ed Greenwood should be treated with the same respect as a poster on this board.

I do, however, stand by my statement that his descriptions of the sex lives of major Realms characters--like the post linked to a couple pages back--often come across as, well, ick. And that has nothing to do with how much sex they contain, and everything to do with how it's portrayed... more precisely, how the people having the sex are portrayed.

For all I know, Ed Greenwood set out to achieve that effect on purpose. Maybe it's a very sophisticated condemnation of society's stereotypes about gamers. Regardless, it adds that tiny little bit of ick-by-association to the Realms, to top off the much more significant reasons I dislike the setting.



Primal said:


> Pardon, but I don't get your first sentence... should I ask everyone if it's okay to talk about sex in graphic novels? Not to be condescending, but do you feel it's okay that some people may freely post about sex in FR novels and how it supposedly reflect's Ed's own sexual perversions, but I cannot post a counterargument about how sex is portrayed in contemporary comicbook industry?




I'm saying that before you make an argument based on the premise that people think X is icky but Y is perfectly fine, it's wise to find out people's opinion of Y.

And you can post whatever you want; you just may get snarked at for it. This is the Internet, after all.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 23, 2010)

Nevermind, not worth it.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Aug 23, 2010)

Come on, let's not make this about Ed himself, let's just keep to the original topic.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 24, 2010)

Philosopher said:


> I have a question for those who say the Realms is bland. What do you consider more interesting? Describe how your favourite campaign setting (or your own homebrew) doesn't have the same flaws as the Realms. I'm asking because I'm genuinely curious about what people _do_ find interesting. That may help in understanding why people dislike the Realms. So I sort of have the same question as the OP, but I'd like a positive description of what would be good rather than merely a criticism of the Realms. What are some _concrete examples_ of things the Realms lack? (Some people have already done this to an extent, but I wanted to make it more explicit to hear from others.)




I like _most_ campaigns outside of FR and Greyhawk.  But let's hit my homebrew.

Religious is ambniguous - no tiresome Hellenistic pantheon.  Kingdoms all have their quirks and their cultures are largely based on real life ones - no "I can't believe it's not Tolkien!" elves.  The setting is largely uncivilized and there's no small amount of wilderness and old ruins of a bygone and more powerful era - and there's a good reason for them being there, too.  There's full societal advancement throughout history.  There are no "good" or "evil" countries - everyone is doing what they feel is best, even if it involves doing something horrible.  The setting is low magic civilization with high magic "outside;" no archmages and high clerics in every village.  The adventurers aren't just random yahoos that are prolific for no given reason, there's an active and politically involved guild of explorers.  There IS a theme, and it's very 1600's Age of Discovery based.

Everything I mentioned here is the _opposite_ of what it's like in Forgotten Realms.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 24, 2010)

Diamond Cross said:


> So how does a detailed setting restrict creativity?




Player expectations mainly. Many posters have complained about the annoyance of having players who know the Realms better than they do, and the constant clash of expectations that results. Once you start changing stuff, you're asking these players to keep two separate models of the Realms in their heads--the "canon" Realms and your version--and inevitably they're going to get mixed up.

It's not a problem I've had to deal with, at least not in this context, but I can easily imagine how it would happen.


----------



## Primal (Aug 24, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> I've pulled back from making from that particular claim, since other people have made the legitimate point that Ed Greenwood should be treated with the same respect as a poster on this board.
> 
> I do, however, stand by my statement that his descriptions of the sex lives of major Realms characters--like the post linked to a couple pages back--often come across as, well, ick. And that has nothing to do with how much sex they contain, and everything to do with how it's portrayed... more precisely, how the people having the sex are portrayed.
> 
> For all I know, Ed Greenwood set out to achieve that effect on purpose. Maybe it's a very sophisticated condemnation of society's stereotypes about gamers. Regardless, it adds that tiny little bit of ick-by-association to the Realms, to top off the much more significant reasons I dislike the setting.




If I had to guess, Ed's primary motivation for implying that FR characters are sexually active, even experimenting with or preferring partners of the same sex, probably has more to do showing that they're "real" people than writing about his sexual fantasies. I don't think Ed was trying to shock readers or make a statement; rather, I believe he just wanted to add another "layer" of believability to these characters and the world. 

I'm an adult, and sexually active in RL, and my characters have occasionally had sex in RPGs, too; therefore I don't see it as an issue, really. And it's not as if Ed Greenwood is the only fantasy author whose books contain implications of sex; even Pratchett's Discworld novels do.  So far I haven't seen a single passage in Ed's novels that I would call "icky", so I cannot fathom why you're making such a big deal out of it, especially as you claim to dislike the setting for more significant reasons.


----------



## Aldarc (Aug 24, 2010)

Primal said:


> If I had to guess, Ed's primary motivation for implying that FR characters are sexually active, even experimenting with or preferring partners of the same sex, probably has more to do showing that they're "real" people than writing about his sexual fantasies. I don't think Ed was trying to shock readers or make a statement; rather, I believe he just wanted to add another "layer" of believability to these characters and the world.
> 
> I'm an adult, and sexually active in RL, and my characters have occasionally had sex in RPGs, too; therefore I don't see it as an issue, really. And it's not as if Ed Greenwood is the only fantasy author whose books contain implications of sex; even Pratchett's Discworld novels do.  So far I haven't seen a single passage in Ed's novels that I would call "icky", so I cannot fathom why you're making such a big deal out of it, especially as you claim to dislike the setting for more significant reasons.



I am happy that you are a sexually active adult in real life, but let us be clear. The issue at hand is not that characters have sex or even that sex is explicit or implicit in the setting/campaign. The matter is the nature of the sexual dimension. It is not so much believable as it is trashy eroticism. The characters may be "real," but it does not come across as real. It comes across as a creepy brand of sexual wish-fulfillment that you would expect out of a porno or the mind of a horny, hormone-driven teenager. I do not think there is anything particularly believable about Elminster in a hot tub filled with 'hawt' drow women or some of the other tales. 

Yes, other fantasy authors have sexual wish-fulfillment fantasies in their works, and that is just as problematic when it happens. I am not sure what pointing to these other sources is meant to accomplish apart from showing how prevalent the problem is in fantasy. But pointing to the prevalence of a problem does not lessen the problem.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Aug 24, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> Player expectations mainly. Many posters have complained about the annoyance of having players who know the Realms better than they do, and the constant clash of expectations that results. Once you start changing stuff, you're asking these players to keep two separate models of the Realms in their heads--the "canon" Realms and your version--and inevitably they're going to get mixed up.
> 
> It's not a problem I've had to deal with, at least not in this context, but I can easily imagine how it would happen.





The thing is that problem can come from any published setting though.


----------



## Corathon (Aug 24, 2010)

OK, I didn't read the whole thread - too long.

I actually liked the first FR boxed set, and the first round of products that followed. The things that I don't like are fairly standard complaints: 

a) Power inflation. At first, FR seemed a relatively low-powered game world, but after a while high level (and very high level) characters seemed to be everywhere. Especially wizards.

b) RSEs. Way too many Realm-shaking events, often driven by things in the novels (of which I was never a fan).


----------



## Alzrius (Aug 24, 2010)

Aldarc said:


> Except I posted prior to Celebrim disappearing. My points are different from Celebrim in other matters as well. I will drop this, but I hope that you would be able to see how disrespectful it is to make this accusation and how personally insulting it was to me.




I disagree with how seriously you're taking it. But so long as you're dropping it.



> _For the ancient world, the existence of the gods was a matter of fact and not faith. Do you deny the destruction of the storm? You have denied the wrath of Zeus and Poseidon. They saw the hand of the gods in everything and everyday life. They believed the gods walked among them. It does not make it true, but as far as their perceptions of the world, it was the same as that of Forgotten Realms. It is not about fact, but the worldview. _




But that's not applicable to the game world because for a fantasy world, it's about facts, not worldview. Certainly, worldview is an element worthy of consideration too, but the actual facts of how the world - and its deities - operate is more important than how it seems to operate to the in-game characters who don't know better.



> _So to did the gods of our historical past, or at least how people saw them._




See above. 



> _It must have cut off. There was not much left in that thought though. Just that they do not behave as a pantheon. _




Sure they do - they have political disputes, personal squabbles, in-fighting and alliances. It just doesn't come with a familial bent.



> _And if all I wanted was the "notation" then you would have a point, but that is not as I have tried explaining to you before. I am merely telling you that you underestimate the value of this notation and its implications. Berna, as I am sure you looked up, did have myths to her name that did involve some of these meager "notations." _




And I think you're overestimating them - I posted why before, regarding moving the burden of world development off of the designers and onto the DM. Implications are nice, but insufficient.



> _Because one is all you need, and I do not want have to repeatedly buy additional sourcebooks and novels for the potential of small snippets of character development, though you may beg to differ with your MORE MORE MORE approach. _




You're getting snippy again. Cease to do so.

One such opportunity is all that's needed, but only if it avails itself of that opportunity to its fullest - rarely is that done in the context of a single such opportunity. More often, it's missed, or not taken full advantage of, and so further development is necessitated.



> _And I do not believe that the deities are well-developed in FR. What development there is in FR feels lackluster and motivated not by character development. *You may not like that freedom, but I as a DM do like that, as do others,* and that does not make it bad material. It makes it material that is not to your preferences. *If you do not want mystery, then FR is the setting for you. You need MORE MORE MORE.* I prefer just enough to get my imagination going and to know how to use well. These different styles are all the more suggestive that Forgotten Realms is not for everyone. _




I've highlighted the areas here where you're putting words in my mouth - something that you've done repeatedly over the course of the discussion. If you can't stop doing so, then I suggest you cease replying to my posts. Don't make it personal.

What you call "mystery" is simply your personal preference for less developed material so that you can do that development yourself. However, not everyone likes that (sound familiar, here?) and some prefer that when paying someone for a pre-made setting, its elements are fully developed.

And it's obvious that FR isn't for everyone - nothing is for everyone.



> _It is no more nebulous than anything else we are talking about. "Sufficient" is exactly that, "sufficient" enough for the use of the DMs and players. Is it any more nebulous than "good character development"? The Time of Troubles struck me as completely ridiculous and nonsensical from start to finish. I saw that as anything but good character development. The entire matter was almost a farse. And it also introduced the terrible character of Cyric. Then there was the Spellplague, which you yourself admit was unnecessary. There were three pantheons between four editions. How many times do you need to kill the goddess of magic? The Time of Troubles and the Spellplague effectively kicked many players and DMs in the balls and ran running. _




It may come as a shock to you, but there are many elements of FR that I don't like - hence why I don't play in the setting and never have. However, I've always admired that it developed the world and its characters to the extent that it did.

If for nothing else, I appreciate that it presented more options, because I believe it's better to have something and not need it than need it and not have it. That is, I like that there's an existing option I can use or ignore at will, rather than find it missing and so need to create it myself if I want to utilize it.



> _I am not sure if that's hardly fair when other people in this thread have expressed their own issues involving exactly that problem. Furthermore, the quality of those novels does detract from the setting for me. I personally cannot stand the Forgotten Realms novels. They, along with the Dragonlance novels, represent some of the most pastiche, poorly-written, cliche, fantasy dribble created. And these qualities just ooze all over the setting. _




That's a personal problem you're describing. If you find that reading the novels creates such a stain on your imagination that the entire setting as a concept is ruined for you, that's not the fault of the material. I've read plenty of bad FR novels myself, but that doesn't sour me on the entire campaign; it just sours me on those novels.

And it's certainly fair to say that canon-lawyers have only as much power as the DM wants them to have - those can be irritating to deal with, yes, but as a problem they're fairly easy to solve by just denying them what they're dragging into your game.



> _Nothing is stopping you from disagreeing with my preferences. But I am not sure what purpose it solves in this thread. I dislike Forgotten Realms as it does not live up to my preferences for a setting. What is there to disagree with? Do you disagree that it does not meet my personal preferences? Do you disagree that it has qualities that are not to my liking? What can you possibly say that will make me change my mind? _




I really don't know what makes you think I want to change your mind - I have no such goals, nor have I ever expressed anything to that end.

That said, if you find this discussion to lack a purpose - and please note that every question you asked above is perfectly applicable to yourself and not just me (save for flipping the preferences around) - feel free to cease participating in it.



> _Again, I find this somewhat debatable as to whether or not the deities were showcased well. And keep in mind that not all character development is good character development. Plus, in order to see this character development, one has to invest in the novels and additional sourcebooks, but the sourcebooks reference the novels. Where is that good character development from the get-go? _




I won't deny that not all character development is good character development - keep in mind that I've said that previously.

Likewise, "investing" in the novels doesn't need to be monetary; one can read them in the library, borrow them from a friend, sit in the bookstore and read them and then put them back on the shelf, and even download them illegally (despite how distateful that option is).

Further, the sourcebooks may reference the novels, but rarely do so without at least summarizing that which they're referencing; it's not as though they say something happened in a book without saying what.

I'd like there to be good character development from the get-go also, but when that doesn't happen I don't believe that the answer is to give up on the setting as a whole.



> _The expansion material in the form of setting sorucebooks are not the problem though. I am telling you that I dislike the "World as Written," the canonical world. DMs can change bits and pieces here and there, but it does not change this canonical world. And when the canonical world changes every edition, then these complications are compounded and conflated by the constant reordering of the canon. But to me, the canonical setting is so lackluster to my tastes that I have no urge to rewrite it at all. It lacks any theme or setting unity. It is a generic mishmash, and its reception history as a setting supports this assertion. The Grey Box had plenty of potential as a setting, but I am still waiting for this potential, just like I am waiting for this good character development in the pantheon. _




But you seem to have made it clear that the expanded material itself is what you have a problem with - in other words, from what I understand, your issue isn't with the quality of the expansion material, so much as it is with its very existence. And that's an attitude that I personally don't care for - you may not like the quality of a work, certainly, but saying that it never should have been made is beyond the pale.



> _Historical pantheons do not go against the grain of most campaign world's internal consistency. This is a bogus claim, because it presumes that most campaigns have deities that behave as they do in Forgotten Realms. The Sovereign Host exists (though it is more ambiguous), but they do not behave as they do in FR. Please take a look at Book of the Righteous so you can know exactly what I am talking about. The book is highly lauded as one of the best d20 products. And it very much proves that active, living deities that mirror historical pantheons does not go against the grain of most campaign worlds. It does not invalidate internal consistency or believability._




I don't have the book, but I'll see what I can do. That said, I don't think that it presumes that most campaigns have deities that behave as they do in FR. 



> _From the FR Wiki: "Tyr was originally intended to be a greater god in the 4th edition pantheon of the Realms but was removed in mid-development and replaced with Torm, mainly due to fan reactions towards Tyr's slaying of Helm in The Grand History of the Realms." _




I remember reading about that when it happened - it's an exception that proves the rule, mostly because fan reaction doesn't seem to usually have very much impact on design and development (save for long-term decisions like "how do we write the rules for a new edition").



> _Again, "they simply wanted to reduce the numbers for the sake of simplicity" is an acknowledgment of how the decision was motivated not by characterization but by notation and bookkeeping. _




I already said they wanted to reduce the number of deities for the sake of simplicity, so I don't see why you're mentioning it again. We're discussing characterization more than complexity - though I do personally find that more complex characters are the ones who're usually multi-faceted.



> _But not in my vernacular._




Okay.


----------



## Nymrohd (Aug 24, 2010)

To add what I don't like about the Forgotten Realms, it has to be the crappy literature. There are a few good writers in the novel lines but the majority is from mediocre to downright crap. Seriously because you can write a few hundred pages doesn't mean you should. I cannot say more because it will start sounding personal and I am a very harsh critic when it comes to literature.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 24, 2010)

Diamond Cross said:


> The thing is that problem can come from any published setting though.




Oh, sure. But the more lore the setting has, the worse it gets. Hence people saying Forgotten Realms is too detailed.


----------



## Swedish Chef (Aug 24, 2010)

Nymrohd said:


> To add what I don't like about the Forgotten Realms, it has to be the crappy literature. There are a few good writers in the novel lines but the majority is from mediocre to downright crap. Seriously because you can write a few hundred pages doesn't mean you should. I cannot say more because it will start sounding personal and I am a very harsh critic when it comes to literature.




This I agree with. I stated earlier in this thread that WotC novels (heck, most novels written for RPGs, video games, TV series, etc) are similar to Harlequin Romance novels. The authors basically follow a simple template for plot progression and fill in the details with their choice of character, location and macguffin.

But I don't hold the Realms responsible for bad literature. It is prevalent throughout the publishing industry. Just pick up any Star Trek, Star Wars, Halo, Warhammer, whatever you like book, and odds are it will be sub par or trite and hackneyed.


----------



## Philosopher (Aug 24, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> Both. (Helpful, aren't I?)




Yes, actually. It reminds me that there are more than just two options. 



Barastrondo said:


> The main reason I run a kitchen-sink world is that I can zoom in to any point and change the major themes of a campaign dramatically while retaining the themes of the world as a whole. I can up the incidence of wizards or elves by focusing on an area where they're more common, for instance, but I don't have to model the whole world around the idea that they're dominant.
> 
> The things I mention above are sufficiently important to me that I prefer them in any D&D game I play, but within those parameters I'm still running three different games off and on: a swashbuckler inspired by Renaissance Italy, a weird fantasy game in a Gormenghast-like city cut off from the Outside, and a gothic horror-themed fantasy a la Ravenloft and Castlevania. I find them sufficiently different that it's delightful swapping between them, but I also enjoy the continuity that comes from them all being expressions of the same overall world.




Sounds good. My current homebrew (still in the early stages) is heading in this direction.



Zhaleskra said:


> I'm probably going to be dog piled for this: because they aren't forgotten.




The old grey box had a feel of being "forgotten", both in terms of seeing the remains of old empires and in terms of newly encountering a land that has been forgotten (the setting itself). More recently, however, it's had more a renaissance feel, which doesn't quite match the name of the setting.



ProfessorCirno said:


> I like _most_ campaigns outside of FR and Greyhawk.  But let's hit my homebrew.
> 
> Religious is ambniguous - no tiresome Hellenistic pantheon.  Kingdoms all have their quirks and their cultures are largely based on real life ones - no "I can't believe it's not Tolkien!" elves.  The setting is largely uncivilized and there's no small amount of wilderness and old ruins of a bygone and more powerful era - and there's a good reason for them being there, too.  There's full societal advancement throughout history.  There are no "good" or "evil" countries - everyone is doing what they feel is best, even if it involves doing something horrible.  The setting is low magic civilization with high magic "outside;" no archmages and high clerics in every village.  The adventurers aren't just random yahoos that are prolific for no given reason, there's an active and politically involved guild of explorers.  There IS a theme, and it's very 1600's Age of Discovery based.
> 
> Everything I mentioned here is the _opposite_ of what it's like in Forgotten Realms.




Thanks. Now that I have an idea of what you _do_ like, I have a better understanding and appreciation of why you dislike the Realms. You're right, what you've got is quite opposed to what the Realms is about.


----------



## Barastrondo (Aug 24, 2010)

JohnRTroy said:


> Well, speaking for myself, the reason I brought up Piers Anthony was because he is a much more respected author than a "gaming writer" like Ed Greenwood, and from what little I read of his work, he was a little more overt in sexual references than anything I read in Greenwood's novels, and I never heard Anthony attacked for that stuff.  I certainly don't think comparing one novelist to another is "weird equivalence".




Conversely, I see Anthony getting criticized a lot for his work (particularly the sexuality between older men and prepubescent girls that pops up in more than one book). More over at RPGnet than here, mind, but I can certainly say that I've seen people discuss Anthony's work with even more disapproval than Greenwood's.


----------



## GregChristopher (Aug 24, 2010)

Attempting to get back on topic.

I actually like FG, but if I had to gripe I would say....

1. The demographics are inherently unsupportable by the technology level. No way that piece of land is supporting multiple cities with 200k+ population

2. Way too much magic. It cheapens it to a degree.

3. It is not Forgotten for very long. Everyone remembers a lot and they know more about the world than their characters really should, undermines the GM and taints the experience, in my opinion.


----------



## Nymrohd (Aug 24, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> Conversely, I see Anthony getting criticized a lot for his work (particularly the sexuality between older men and prepubescent girls that pops up in more than one book). More over at RPGnet than here, mind, but I can certainly say that I've seen people discuss Anthony's work with even more disapproval than Greenwood's.




The problem with Greenwood's novels is not the sex between old guys and hot young women. The problem with the novels is that for some reason, while Greenwood is excellent when he is writing RPG books he is just poor at writing novels. Bad plot, bad characters, too much forced awesome trying to make up for the former.


----------



## Celebrim (Aug 24, 2010)

Nymrohd said:


> Bad plot, bad characters, too much forced awesome trying to make up for the former.




See, I would argue that that list of flaws applies equally to his RPG work.


----------



## WizarDru (Aug 24, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> Conversely, I see Anthony getting criticized a lot for his work (particularly the sexuality between older men and prepubescent girls that pops up in more than one book). More over at RPGnet than here, mind, but I can certainly say that I've seen people discuss Anthony's work with even more disapproval than Greenwood's.




I have to second this.  I have enjoyed some of Anthony's books, but there has long been controversies surrounding his material.  Claims of misogyny and being a pedophile make Anthony a particularly bad choice to show an author who writes detailed sexual material in his work and _doesn't_ get criticized...because he very much does and has for a long, long time.

Here's a thread from RPG.net in 2005, for example. His first book "A Spell for Chameleon", features a female character who basically changes from incredibly sexy and stupid to intelligent and ugly _based on her menstrual cycle_.  Similar criticisms have followed Anthony for decades, especially from more recent readers, like this one.  His one book, Firefly, apparently features a 10-page encounter between a 5 year-old and an adult and was the tipping point for many fans to stop reading him, as [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Firefly-Piers-Anthony/dp/0380759500"]some of the reviews at Amazon will attest[/ame], dating back to 1997.

I can't speak to Greenwood, either way...but I've heard of criticisms of Piers Anthony for as long as I've known of him.


----------



## Primal (Aug 24, 2010)

Aldarc said:


> I am happy that you are a sexually active adult in real life, but let us be clear. The issue at hand is not that characters have sex or even that sex is explicit or implicit in the setting/campaign. The matter is the nature of the sexual dimension. It is not so much believable as it is trashy eroticism. The characters may be "real," but it does not come across as real. It comes across as a creepy brand of sexual wish-fulfillment that you would expect out of a porno or the mind of a horny, hormone-driven teenager. I do not think there is anything particularly believable about Elminster in a hot tub filled with 'hawt' drow women or some of the other tales.




And which FR novel or short story has had such "trashy" scenes? And I may be wrong here, but I can't recall Elminster hanging out in a hot tub with drow women. Please clarify what you mean by "trashy" and what you find so offensive about sexuality in FR novels; is it the idea of older men having sex with younger females? Characters having multiple sexual partners? Or because FR features people with different sexual orientations? Or people experimenting with whips and whatnot?

Look, I'm fine with people having sex; it's what people do and have always done (the only thing I don't tolerate is when children or minors are represented as sexual objects). And I think it's completely believable that members of either sex could seek older partners; after all, my own mom is dating a man several years younger than myself. There might also be other motives that motive (especially younger female wizards and sorceresses) to seek Elminster's company; favors, power, intrigue, or simply just because of his charisma. It does not have to have anything to do with real affection.



> Yes, other fantasy authors have sexual wish-fulfillment fantasies in their works, and that is just as problematic when it happens. I am not sure what pointing to these other sources is meant to accomplish apart from showing how prevalent the problem is in fantasy. But pointing to the prevalence of a problem does not lessen the problem.




Let me say it again: please, PLEASE do not make such assumptions; you don't know what kind of sexual fantasies author X or Y might or might not have, and whether those are reflected in his/her works or not. Could you name a few examples? And, again, please take a look at some contemporary comicbook titles and compare them to how sex in usually presented in fantasy fiction. How does it matter? Well, without some sort of frame of reference, your argument feels kind of out of context -- it's just an opinion without anything to back it up. And if we're talking about sex in our society and popular culture... well, I don't think it's *that* prominent or problematic in fantasy fiction, right?


----------



## Nymrohd (Aug 24, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> See, I would argue that that list of flaws applies equally to his RPG work.




Bad plot and bad characters? Yeah I am afraid I'd agree. When introduced in the grey box most of the NPCs felt great but the character development ever since has been . . . lacking. The difference is that the writing itself is better in the books. I mean Serpent Kingdoms in 3.5 as one of the more recent FR works of Greenwood was very well written (though it suffered badly from one of the two main problems of 3E FR, mainly demystifying all the FR mysteries).


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 24, 2010)

Ed Greenwood made a female character who magicked away her pregnancies so she would always look extra sexy for her constant orgies.

Like, the guy _self identifies_ as a dirty old man.  He calls himself this all the damn time.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to defend here.


----------



## Aldarc (Aug 24, 2010)

Primal said:


> And which FR novel or short story has had such "trashy" scenes? And I may be wrong here, but I can't recall Elminster hanging out in a hot tub with drow women. Please clarify what you mean by "trashy" and what you find so offensive about sexuality in FR novels; is it the idea of older men having sex with younger females? Characters having multiple sexual partners? Or because FR features people with different sexual orientations? Or people experimenting with whips and whatnot?
> 
> Look, I'm fine with people having sex; it's what people do and have always done (the only thing I don't tolerate is when children or minors are represented as sexual objects). And I think it's completely believable that members of either sex could seek older partners; after all, my own mom is dating a man several years younger than myself. There might also be other motives that motive (especially younger female wizards and sorceresses) to seek Elminster's company; favors, power, intrigue, or simply just because of his charisma. It does not have to have anything to do with real affection.



I was clarifying the arguments of detractors as people arguing against them seemed to be largely missing their point. Some examples of where this can be found in Greenwood were listed in previous threads of this discussion, including the book that had the drow hawt tub. Again, the problem is not so much the _what_ is conveyed but the _how_ it is conveyed. Explicit or implicit sex is not the problem. It is the nature of the sex that comes across as the immature perversions of a horny teenager or a porno. It is not sex presented maturely. It is pointless titillation for the sake of titillation. 



> Let me say it again: please, PLEASE do not make such assumptions; you don't know what kind of sexual fantasies author X or Y might or might not have, and whether those are reflected in his/her works or not. Could you name a few examples? And, again, please take a look at some contemporary comicbook titles and compare them to how sex in usually presented in fantasy fiction. How does it matter? Well, without some sort of frame of reference, your argument feels kind of out of context -- it's just an opinion without anything to back it up. And if we're talking about sex in our society and popular culture... well, I don't think it's *that* prominent or problematic in fantasy fiction, right?



This was not expanded since this issue was largely beside the point of Ed Greenwood. As I said, pointing to how this manifests in other fantasy works does not somehow absolve Ed Greenwood of his guilt in this phenomenon. But do you not think that this is somewhat off-topic? I would love to talk about this issue in further detail. But for an example of what I am talking about: it is really not hard to read the sexual subtext found in the frequency in which human males hook up with female elves, who exemplify idealized feminine attributes. This already nails down a number of fantasy books.


----------



## Primal (Aug 24, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Ed Greenwood made a female character who magicked away her pregnancies so she would always look extra sexy for her constant orgies.
> 
> Like, the guy _self identifies_ as a dirty old man.  He calls himself this all the damn time.
> 
> I'm not even sure what you're trying to defend here.




When/where has he said so? 

And is there something perverted in "magicking away" your pregnancies... we have pills for that. If we had magic in RL, I'm fairly sure that such spells would be surprisingly popular -- at least among teenagers. AFAIK it tells nothing of Ed's own personality. And a lot of nobles in fiction and RPG campaigns tend to have orgies... a lot of orgies.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 25, 2010)

Primal said:


> When/where has he said so?
> 
> And is there something perverted in "magicking away" your pregnancies... we have pills for that. If we had magic in RL, I'm fairly sure that such spells would be surprisingly popular -- at least among teenagers. AFAIK it tells nothing of Ed's own personality. And a lot of nobles in fiction and RPG campaigns tend to have orgies... a lot of orgies.




Seriously?

You're going to argue that Ed Greenwood isn't a dirty old man?

_Really?_  That's the fight you're choosing?  Ed "the party comes across an orgy and needs to find the beautiful queen in there" Greenwood?  Ed "never describes a female character, just calls them beautiful" Greenwood?  Ed "If I had my way the Forgotten Realms books would read more like a letter to Penthouse" Greenwood?

You're going to fight that he's not perverse?


----------



## Diamond Cross (Aug 25, 2010)

No, but you are full of  for commenting on him personally and trying to persecute him just for his novels.


----------



## Aldarc (Aug 25, 2010)

Primal said:


> And is there something perverted in "magicking away" your pregnancies... we have pills for that. If we had magic in RL, I'm fairly sure that such spells would be surprisingly popular -- at least among teenagers. AFAIK it tells nothing of Ed's own personality.
> 
> And a lot of nobles in fiction and RPG campaigns tend to have orgies... a lot of orgies.



It's not a matter that there are orgies - no one will dispute the historical reality of orgies - but _how_ Greenwood presents these orgies. And the _how_ is rather telling of his personality. You can read the delight he has in his own perversions.


----------



## Philosopher (Aug 25, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Seriously?
> 
> You're going to argue that Ed Greenwood isn't a dirty old man?
> 
> ...




Here's what you said:



ProfessorCirno said:


> Like, the guy _self identifies_ as a dirty old man.  He calls himself this all the damn time.




I don't care whether he is one or not, but I'm also curious to see a reference. Where does he call himself a dirty old man? If I see it, I'll be convinced.


----------



## Turjan (Aug 25, 2010)

Aldarc said:


> It's not a matter that there are orgies - no one will dispute the historical reality of orgies - but _how_ Greenwood presents these orgies. And the _how_ is rather telling of his personality. You can read the delight he has in his own perversions.



Hmm. From all I have heard about Ed (never met him myself), I can understand the "icky" part, in the way that he seems to use very sexually loaded language in communication with his female fans, which might make women feel uncomfortable. I haven't seen anything that reminds me of perversion, though.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 25, 2010)

> The whole thing reads like a horny 14-year-old male's personal fantasy world.




Ding-dong.

The nerd power fantasy is in full swing here, with both Elminster and Drizzit, and the whole sorry world that creates them. 

And the Spellplauge wasn't the right fix for the mass market. While a vastly entertaining idea, it did destroy what some people love about it. Which, y'know...booooooooo.


----------



## Aldarc (Aug 25, 2010)

Turjan said:


> Hmm. From all I have heard about Ed (never met him myself), I can understand the "icky" part, in the way that he seems to use very sexually loaded language in communication with his female fans, which might make women feel uncomfortable. I haven't seen anything that reminds me of perversion, though.



Now we are just playing at semantics.


----------



## Turjan (Aug 25, 2010)

Aldarc said:


> Now we are just playing at semantics.



Not my intent. I get a 70's hippy vibe from him, and that's more amusing than anything else.


----------



## Aegeri (Aug 25, 2010)

This thread sure took a turn for the weird. It reminds me of the Forgotten Realms novels boards on the official forums, before the great drama that had them shut down and all novel discussion banned.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Aug 25, 2010)

Well if I was a moderator here I would simply give some informal warnings about how these idiots are making personal attacks against someone they don't even know.


----------



## Aldarc (Aug 25, 2010)

Diamond Cross said:


> Well if I was a moderator here I would simply give some informal warnings about how *these idiots* are making personal attacks against someone they don't even know.



Aren't you walking dangerously close to committing this yourself?


----------



## Diamond Cross (Aug 25, 2010)

Aldarc said:


> Aren't you walking dangerously close to committing this yourself?




Quite possibly, but it was very wrong to start turning this into a witchunt against the author and calling him creepy.

But hey, who cares. It's fun to demonize people you can't know in order to get people to stop discussing a product because they don't like the product.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 25, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> This thread sure took a turn for the weird. It reminds me of the Forgotten Realms novels boards on the official forums, before the great drama that had them shut down and all novel discussion banned.




At this point I'm dying of curiosity to hear what this great drama was, but worried that asking will precipitate the same here... can you give us a hint?


----------



## Aegeri (Aug 25, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> At this point I'm dying of curiosity to hear what this great drama was, but worried that asking will precipitate the same here... can you give us a hint?




It got shut down due to immensely vicious and repeated attacks on certain authors, such as Elaine Cunningham and the arguments back and forth. Inevitably Wizards novel department decided this state of affairs was terrible for business and had the forum shut down. You couldn't even talk about novels on the forum without having your thread deleted and you potentially banned.

I don't like most Realms novels and Greenwood in particular is not my favourite fantasy author. As an example, Spellfire is arguably one of the worst books I've ever read, especially when they have sex right outside a dracolich's lair of all damn things. But I don't hold anything personal against the guy and the attacks on him here just remind me of the sort of shenanigans from the old FR novels forum.

I'm not one to get high and mighty about being snippy, having a sarcastic tone and such - but at least the people I do that to are here to defend themselves (because I'm talking to them). Greenwood isn't here to defend himself, so it always makes me feel somewhat uncomfortable when I see various accusations and attacks like he's a "Dirty old man" an such. Minding, it's not like the authors being there to defend themselves made things any better actually.


----------



## Aldarc (Aug 25, 2010)

Diamond Cross said:


> Quite possibly, but it was very wrong to start turning this into a witchunt against the author and calling him creepy.
> 
> But hey, who cares. It's fun to demonize people you can't know in order to get people to stop discussing a product because they don't like the product.



You're right. We should turn our endeavors to the literary criticism of his written works. And when literary criticism potentially reveals a piss poor writing style coupled with sexist undertones, can we attribute this to anything but the author? But how could this be? Certainly we need to examine the author himself, if we are to understand the inspiration of his works. So when we look at what he has said outside of his novels, what he has written on electronic documents, or what has transpired in his campaigns, or what other eye-witnesses have said about him, would we be out of line for noting those peculiarities?


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 25, 2010)

Ed Goddamn Greenwood said:
			
		

> My concept of Alustriel as de facto ruler of Silverymoon has always been  glossed over by TSR (and now WotC) for Code of Ethics/Code of Conduct  reasons, because I see her as the Realms equivalent of ‘the Queen of  Courtly Love,’ presiding over a Court that amuses itself (along with  delighting in wit, new songs, new inventions or clever craftsmanship,  and fashions) with dalliances, courtship, and lovemaking. Er, lots of  lovemaking. :}
> 
> In the same way that real-world kings in some places and times enjoyed  droit de signeur [French for: “As the King, I have the right to sleep  with anyone” :}], Alustriel takes many lovers for short periods of time,  and is one of those rare kind, understanding, warm people who has the  knack of staying close, affectionate friends with former lovers, even in  the presence of other ex-flames. In fact, it’s quite likely that any  meeting of courtiers will contain a majority of folk who have visited  the royal bed or baths at one time or another -- and most of them remain  fiercely loyal to Alustriel and to her dream of Silverymoon. (In fact,  some cynics, such as Torm of the Knights of Myth Drannor, believe she  deliberately seduces political foes to transform them into personal  friends.) The fact demonstrably remains that to attack Alustriel in  Silverymoon will be to evoke immediate defense of her person by dozens  of champions who will lay down their lives to protect hers, even knowing  she’s the “Anointed of the Goddess” and may not really need their  protection.
> 
> ...




No guys seriously he's not perverted at all!


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 25, 2010)

Aldarc said:


> You're right. We should turn our endeavors to the literary criticism of his written works. And when literary criticism potentially reveals a piss poor writing style coupled with sexist undertones, can we attribute this to anything but the author? But how could this be? Certainly we need to examine the author himself, if we are to understand the inspiration of his works. So when we look at what he has said outside of his novels, what he has written on electronic documents, or what has transpired in his campaigns, or what other eye-witnesses have said about him, would we be out of line for noting those peculiarities?




I would say that those subjects are fair game to the extent that they relate to the work in question, but I agree with Diamond Cross that the author himself is not fair game. It's a fine line and I've already stepped over it a few times. Part of the reason I've been mostly quiet the last few pages is not wanting to risk stepping over it again.

I also think Aegeri has a point and this discussion is going nowhere good, and it's pretty tangential anyway, so I'm officially exiting the debate about sex in the Realms. This whole thread was walking on thin ice to begin with, and I think it's pretty much played out now.

Anybody have any new criticisms of the Forgotten Realms that haven't already been argued to death?


----------



## Diamond Cross (Aug 25, 2010)

Aldarc said:


> You're right. We should turn our endeavors to the literary criticism of his written works. And when literary criticism potentially reveals a piss poor writing style coupled with sexist undertones, can we attribute this to anything but the author? But how could this be? Certainly we need to examine the author himself, if we are to understand the inspiration of his works. So when we look at what he has said outside of his novels, what he has written on electronic documents, or what has transpired in his campaigns, or what other eye-witnesses have said about him, would we be out of line for noting those peculiarities?





Yes, it is completely out of line.

Kind of like this:



> [FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=+1]_*A Rapist's View of the World: Joss Whedon and Firefly*_[/SIZE][/FONT]
> This is a really long rant about Joss Whedon's _Firefly_. Why?  Because I'm angry and I think it is really important that feminists  don't leave popular culture out of the equation. Especially considering  that popular culture is increasingly being influenced by pornography.
> 
> ***
> ...



_allecto_: A Rapist's View of the World: Joss Whedon and Firefly


Because all it is is nothing more than a hit piece to assassinate any writer's character character, no more than idiots gossiping around a water cooler.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 25, 2010)

Diamond Cross said:


> Yes, it is completely out of line.
> 
> Kind of like this: . . .



No, it is nothing like that.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Aug 25, 2010)

Diamond Cross said:


> Well if I was a moderator here I would simply give some informal warnings about how these idiots are making personal attacks against someone they don't even know.




Kinda like you just did?


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 25, 2010)

Eric Anondson said:


> No, it is nothing like that.




Yeah, those two are pretty much hilariously opposite of each other.  "Let's judge someone based on their works and how they act towards others in public" versus "No but see someone crazy hated this guy _they're the same!_"


----------



## Diamond Cross (Aug 25, 2010)

Eric Anondson said:


> No, it is nothing like that.





It is no different than that.



> Kinda like you just did?




Don't turn this around on me you people are the ones making personal attacks against an author.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Aug 25, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Yeah, those two are pretty much hilariously opposite of each other.  "Let's judge someone based on their works and how they act towards others in public" versus "No but see someone crazy hated this guy _they're the same!_"




She's judging him based on his work. You're judging an author based on his work. She's calling him a monster. You're calling Ed a monster. Neither of you have even met him it's just rumors and innuendo.

It is no different than you guys going after Ed

Well, I hope you idiots are satisfied. You got this discussion about the material shut down from your trolling.


----------



## Barastrondo (Aug 25, 2010)

Diamond Cross said:


> Well, I hope you idiots are satisfied. You got this discussion about the material shut down from your trolling.




There are, regrettably, two sides. In a thread where someone asks for negative opinions, there are two things that are asking for trouble. Yes, one is negative opinions that are unfounded (and honestly, there's a difference between a negative impression formed by an author's writing and outright assuming the impression is factual). The other, however, is attempting to prove someone's viewpoint as wrong — not factual errors in a viewpoint, but outright "this is too X for me" stuff. And that happened too. 

Get both of those things in the same thread, yoicks.


----------



## karolusb (Aug 25, 2010)

Some of my issues come from play, and there is no way around that.  Blame my GM (who was a great GM that I enjoyed playing with).  Regardless Khelben and the Harpers were our least favorite band (that GM never used Elminster actually).  

The Harpers are a planet spanning group, alternately good or philosophically neutral (not FR's fault but something I dislike).  They are supported directly by a list of like 15 gods, and according the Wiki entry the gods always agree with the harpers, even if the church doesn't.  Yes it's a bad wiki article, but it matches what I remember, they are *right*, there is never debate, never hard choices, simple black and white harpers/other guys.  It is a painfully simplistic view of the world, even for D&D.  Combined with their influence spread over the entire (massive) known world and they come across as silly.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Aug 25, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> There are, regrettably, two sides. In a thread where someone asks for negative opinions, there are two things that are asking for trouble. Yes, one is negative opinions that are unfounded (and honestly, there's a difference between a negative impression formed by an author's writing and outright assuming the impression is factual). The other, however, is attempting to prove someone's viewpoint as wrong — not factual errors in a viewpoint, but outright "this is too X for me" stuff. And that happened too.
> 
> Get both of those things in the same thread, yoicks.




Yep.

Which was the entire purpose of getting people to talk about Ed rather than discussing the material. That was to create conflict where none existed for the sake of entertainment.

Well, I only hope they got what they wanted and are satisfied.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 25, 2010)

Diamond Cross said:


> She's judging him based on his work. You're judging an author based on his work. She's calling him a monster. You're calling Ed a monster. Neither of you have even met him it's just rumors and innuendo.



Nothing wrong with judging. We do it all the time, judge and be judged. Judging people has gotten a bad reputation, hold it up like some talisman of evil. She called him a rapist (!). Cirno called him creepy. Big difference right there and finding equivalence in it is . . . troubling.

Plus Prof. Cirno posted Ed's actual typed words for all of us to make our own judgement (argh! that word!  ), no innuendo anymore.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Aug 25, 2010)

Eric Anondson said:


> Nothing wrong with judging. We do it all the time, judge and be judged. Judging people has gotten a bad reputation, hold it up like some talisman of evil. She called him a rapist (!). Cirno called him creepy. Big difference right there and finding equivalence in it is . . . troubling.
> 
> Plus Prof. Cirno posted Ed's actual typed words for all of us to make our own judgement (argh! that word!  ), no innuendo anymore.




Yep, it's like Nagilum says.

Ah well, say la vee.

(Which is how we Americans say c'est la vie)


----------



## Philosopher (Aug 25, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> No guys seriously he's not perverted at all!




The quote you gave was already linked to earlier in this thread. And it is immaterial to the claim you made. Once again, you said that Ed Greenwood "_self identifies_ as a dirty old man" (your words, your emphasis). He did not identify as such in the quote you gave. Do you know what it means to provide a reference?


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 25, 2010)

Diamond Cross said:


> She's judging him based on his work. You're judging an author based on his work. She's calling him a monster. You're calling Ed a monster. Neither of you have even met him it's just rumors and innuendo.
> 
> It is no different than you guys going after Ed
> 
> Well, I hope you idiots are satisfied. You got this discussion about the material shut down from your trolling.




Nobody called Ed a "monster"

You're taking this _hilariously_ deeper and far more personal then anyone else is.

Besides, you're comparing us to someone who's flat out crazy.  Seriously, you aren't making yourself look better.  You're turning _yourself_ into a scarecrow.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Aug 25, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Nobody called Ed a "monster"
> 
> You're taking this _hilariously_ deeper and far more personal then anyone else is.
> 
> Besides, you're comparing us to someone who's flat out crazy.  Seriously, you aren't making yourself look better.  You're turning _yourself_ into a scarecrow.




Caw caw.

Calling somebody creepy is not really any differently than calling somebody a monster.

And all I'm doing is providing the entertainment you people are demanding.

You don't want to talk about the material, just want to bash someone, so I'm just giving you guys further reason to do so.

I hope you like it.

*Let's be clear here, folks. If there's a problem with a thread, you report it (via the little triangular "!" at the bottom left of every post.) You do NOT take on the role of internet vigilante and try to solve the problem by arguing and posting Joss Whedon rape screeds. Similarly, everyone, you don't sink to personal insults.

PM me if this is the slightest bit unclear.

 - Piratecat*


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 25, 2010)

Oh come on now. Get off the cross, we need to wood to stir the edition wars.


----------



## Glade Riven (Aug 25, 2010)

Philosopher said:


> I have a question for those who say the Realms is bland. What do you consider more interesting? Describe how your favourite campaign setting (or your own homebrew) doesn't have the same flaws as the Realms.




One main issue is that Forgotten Realms starts out as a Tolkien knock-off and then adds on every fantasy trope out there (and is probably responsible for developing a few new ones).

Eberron - Sure, some of it works well and some of it doesn't, but it really works hard to do something different with everything. I'm also a fan of pulp-noir when done right. The "New World" of Xendric is cool. The psionic flavoring in the setting is weak, though.

Iron Kingdoms - It's a brutal world, with a magical industrial revolution going on. The elves are still slightly Tolkien-esq, but they take it in a different direction.

Dawnforge - Hyborian Age meets Similrilion. I don't mind a dash of Tolkien when it isn't the same part of Tolkien that's being ripped off all the time. It sticks to it's theme.

Homebrew - Right now I'm working on a campaign setting that mixes and matches various bits of historical cultures. For instance, the Elves have a caste system with a nobility somewhat like ancient china (mostly a bunch of buerocrats trying to one-up each other), a warrior caste loosly based off Samurai, and a peasant class that works all day and parties half the night. The elves recently (in their time) built an empire based off of a human notion. The humans built themselves an empire which largly collapsed under it's own weight and fragmented. The dwarves are looking to build an Empire, but are only just starting on it.

I'm focusing on building an interesting world, with each region essentually it's own "themed" campaign setting. There is also a lot of empty space intentionally left for anyone (as I am going to be web-publishing it) to add what they want into it.


----------



## Piratecat (Aug 25, 2010)

We are so very, very done.  I bet you can guess why.

Closed. At least one person should look for a PM.


----------

