# Forgotten Realms "Canon Lawyers"



## wingsandsword (Jun 29, 2009)

This is about the so-called "canon lawyer", the person with huge archives of Forgotten Realms knowledge in their head that not only knows obscure minutiae of Faerun and Abeir-Toril, they also expect any FR game to use all of this.  They are notorious for makin an issue out of when something comes up in a game that contradicts something they know about the setting, especially something that most players would consider a minor detail.  

I've heard a lot of theories/explanations that this was one of the big reasons for the gutting/nuking of the Realms for 4e, that these "canon lawyers" were making life miserable on DM's that couldn't keep up with the vast lore of the Forgotten Realms (that frankly, nobody except maybe somebody who was paid to do so by WotC could be expected to completely keep up with), so they jumped the timeline ahead 100+ years, killed off or drove mads loads of people and slaughtered a good number of deities all as a giant reset switch to invalidate tons of canon so DMs could run Forgotten Realms canonically without worrying about what was written before.

The thing is, I always hear these "canon lawyer" horror stories online but I never ran across them in real life.  When I run Forgotten Realms the players I run with generally know the Realms from playing Baldur's Gate or following some of the novels (particularly the Elminster or Drizzt ones), or they are also a casual fan and have read some of the gaming materials, especially those about a part of the setting they prefer (one of my friends likes Netheril, for example, and knows that decently well, but he couldn't rattle off dates and obscure minutiae).  They all understand that they are playing in that setting, but it isn't precisely like everything and that I am only human.  I am trying to keep the game fairly close to the setting as published, certainly enough that a casual fan won't notice, but I can't promise 100% canon match, they certainly don't ask for it, and I think I wouldn't take it well if I had someone join a game I was running that really tried to throw obscure esoteric lore from some novel or some sourcebook I haven't read in my face.

I've ran into them in message boards, like when I once said something about the Forgotten Realms that is contradicted by some obscure public e-mail Ed Greenwood from years ago that was dutifully archived, and I've heard some horror stories about them here, but I do really wonder, just how common are they in typical Forgotten Realms D&D play?


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jun 29, 2009)

I've seen one or two of them. The big problem with them is once you've seen one in action, the setting is pretty much ruined for you for all time. Just looking at the setting, all the novels and all the canon, you can see the seeds where these people sprout from. For most of its 2E and 3E lifespan, the Forgotten Realms through sourcebooks and novels provided a metric ton of what some people refer to as "continuity porn". This lends credence to the stories of these canon lawyers. Most of us are geeks, enough to have witnessed Star Wars/Star Trek fanatics arguing over minutiae at some point in our lives, so the feeling is familiar. There is also a lesser evil with this, and that is that the canon lawyer, even if he's not ruining the game for other people overtly, can dominate or steal the spotlight in other ways. I saw this when I was running the Dragonlance modules, where the one player I had who read the books was catching the little setting details and appreciating them where everybody else just walked on by. Combining this with her greater knowledge of Dragonlance geography and history kind of made her the center of the game regardless of her own behavior. 

Canon lawyers aren't the only problem with FR. Just as big of a problem were Mary Sue DMs. These tended not to be canon lawyers but novel fanboys, who tend to insert their favorite novel characters into their campaigns as intolerable Mary Sues.


----------



## ggroy (Jun 29, 2009)

I've met two Forgotten Realms "canon lawyers" so far.  I had no idea what these guys were complaining about in the 3.5E FR game I was playing in.  At the time, I was relatively clueless about Forgotten Realms for the most part.  I had never read any of the FR novels and I didn't have any FR splatbooks or modules at the time.  (Even today, I still have not read any FR novels).

After awhile, these FR "canon lawyers" got really annoying.  Though it didn't turn me off from the setting.

For other settings such as Eberron, Golarion, etc ..., I haven't met any hardcore "canon lawyers" yet for these particular settings.


----------



## Bumbles (Jun 29, 2009)

You can go your whole life without running into any of the archetypes, be it a canon lawyer, a rules lawyer, a munchkin, a power-gamer, a min-maxer, or whatever others you'd care to name.

Doesn't mean they don't exist.

Also, vampires are REAL!


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 29, 2009)

wingsandsword said:


> This is about the so-called "canon lawyer", the person with huge archives of Forgotten Realms knowledge in their head that not only knows obscure minutiae of Faerun and Abeir-Toril, they also expect any FR game to use all of this.



 In my experiance it isn't even that they expect it to all be used, but they respond expecting X when other people at the table (event he DM sometimes) have no idea why...




> The thing is, I always hear these "canon lawyer" horror stories online but I never ran across them in real life.



  How many Cons have you gone to? I only ask becuse if not for Gen Con 1999 I would have never thought anyone else ever ran into this. Since then ever Con I have been to (except last year) I have herd some variant of these horror stories (although not always in the realms)



> They all understand that they are playing in that setting, but it isn't precisely like everything and that I am only human.  I am trying to keep the game fairly close to the setting as published, certainly enough that a casual fan won't notice, but I can't promise 100% canon match, they certainly don't ask for it, and I think I wouldn't take it well if I had someone join a game I was running that really tried to throw obscure esoteric lore from some novel or some sourcebook I haven't read in my face.




See it isn't even always "thrown in faces"...like my friend Ross. He is a sweet guy. He never really argues, but he is a Realms Cannon Lawyer. He always ever single FR game in 2e or 3e (even a little in LFR 4e) has a story. Oh this city is where X happened...or this king is really controled by the zents...or Did you know X character was changed from Class A to Class B in the edtion switch...or Heyin Volo's guide...In elminster;s Ecology...



> but I do really wonder, just how common are they in typical Forgotten Realms D&D play?





They are just common enough to have upset enough people to make it a vocal problem...



thecasualoblivion said:


> I've seen one or two of them. The big problem with them is once you've seen one in action, the setting is pretty much ruined for you for all time.



This is where I was pre 4e.
    I have meet more then a few fans of the novels, and each has his onw thing...but I have meet 3 "canon Lawyers" infact one is mty roommate. ((also one of them, not the roommate, was the worst of the rules lawyers, power gamers, and drama queen we had for a while))



> Most of us are geeks, enough to have witnessed Star Wars/Star Trek fanatics arguing over minutiae at some point in our lives, so the feeling is familiar.



 On the other hand I have had every single attept to do eaither star trek or star wars RPGs as player and DM shut down by this...I don't think I can count on both hands togather the number of rabid fan boys I know for both...




> Canon lawyers aren't the only problem with FR. Just as big of a problem were Mary Sue DMs. These tended not to be canon lawyers but novel fanboys, who tend to insert their favorite novel characters into their campaigns as intolerable Mary Sues.




but the biggest problem is that Ed greenwood himself endurces and helped push this out..If  you find his interview at the Tomb you will find a story he tells of the PCs being held by a king and about to be excuted...then elminster barges in and tells the king he must speak with him privatly right awya ((Of cource what king would dare refuse the sage of mary sue)) as el and the king went to a private room El winked at the PCs and motioned for them to run away...

Now just to put this in perspective this was his idea of el being 'played right' by the DM.





Now I also want to say, the NPC thing is a problem becuse of how I run games. I normaly start out low level as the PCs are adventures...by the mid levels they work as qusy mercs, sometimes I even fall back on the "Person A finds you and begs for help" archtype...
  By like 12th leve (2nd or 3rd edtion) I have plot lines running (sometimes right from level 1 I lay them in there) were something HUGE is going down. My 13+ level games where always legendary...Good Vs Evil on some epic scale. The PCs have to save the whole world...or even multivers.
      The problem being When the you know what hits the fan (Example I had a red wizard plot to invade...opps I didn't know there were chosen of the god of magic devoting large portions of there lives to fight said threat) I expect the PCs to feel a little out classed, and to have to scramble and start to build to the big climax that might take levels...What do i do when the PCs say "We can get the Harpers to help" or "Hey they are invading Symbol's contry we can get her help" or "(Insert NPC from a novel) has been ready to fight them since (Insert event I didn't even know about)"


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 29, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> You can go your whole life without running into any of the archetypes, be it a canon lawyer, a rules lawyer, a munchkin, a power-gamer, a min-maxer, or whatever others you'd care to name.



Or you could sit down at a Con to your first LFR event and have one of each at your table...


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 29, 2009)

wingsandsword said:


> I've ran into them in message boards, like when I once said something about the Forgotten Realms that is contradicted by some obscure public e-mail Ed Greenwood from years ago that was dutifully archived, and I've heard some horror stories about them here, but I do really wonder, just how common are they in typical Forgotten Realms D&D play?




I've run into at least three such "canon lawyers" IRL and, while that doesn't sound so bad, their behavior was irritating enough that more than a decade later I _still_ won't sit down at a table with them _and_ it greatly soured me on any version of FR other than the original grey box.


----------



## vagabundo (Jun 29, 2009)

Never ran into them in RL. But I'm pretty sure they are out there - they mostly come out at night I hear.

I always thought that WotC should have released a Quarterly update for FR DMs with meta-plot updates. It would be nice for those who don't follow the novels or miss a supplement. I think it would have made my FR games more satisfying to run, from my point of view.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 29, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> but the biggest problem is that Ed greenwood himself endurces and helped push this out..If  you find his interview at the Tomb you will find a story he tells of the PCs being held by a king and about to be excuted...then elminster barges in and tells the king he must speak with him privatly right awya ((Of cource what king would dare refuse the sage of mary sue)) as el and the king went to a private room El winked at the PCs and motioned for them to run away...
> 
> Now just to put this in perspective this was his idea of el being 'played right' by the DM.




Slightly OT - These tales of Ed - in his own words, usually - always make wonder to what extent his players can actually have enjoyed his game.  It just seems so appallingly bad GMing.  I also wonder about the thinking in TSR at the time they chose Ed and his setting to be, effectively, the new face of TSR, replacing Gygax and Greyhawk.  Was this deliberate, moving away from Gygax's pseudo-malevolent GMing & rather bleak setting?  Did they not know, or think, about the implications of what we now call Mary Sue-ism?  Did they think "Well it's like Gandalf, saving the hobbits.  No fun if your hobbit gets killed..."?


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 29, 2009)

There is a good fix for these jokers. Find out their most favorite FR character and introduce him/her as an NPC in the game. In the following session kill off that NPC with a nice Tratyn Runewind style death and move on with the game. You might want to wear a bulletproof vest though.


----------



## vagabundo (Jun 29, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> There is a good fix for these jokers. Find out their most favorite FR character and introduce him/her as an NPC in the game. In the following session kill off that NPC with a nice Tratyn Runewind style death and move on with the game. You might want to wear a bulletproof vest though.




I picture a horrible war with two lines of impaled NPCs lining the road to Waterdeep - a smoking ruin of what it once was - and Elminister is at the head of an army of demons and orcs, a cruel war-master and tyrant. 

Forgotten Dark-Realms. Or Forget the Realms you once knew or something....


----------



## FireLance (Jun 29, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> There is a good fix for these jokers. Find out their most favorite FR character and introduce him/her as an NPC in the game. In the following session kill off that NPC with a nice Tratyn Runewind style death and move on with the game. You might want to wear a bulletproof vest though.



Nice reference, but how many people do you think actually read Bimbos of the Death Sun?


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 29, 2009)

FireLance said:


> Nice reference, but how many people do you think actually read Bimbos of the Death Sun?




It is my hope that this has been read by everyone who has been to a con ever.


----------



## FireLance (Jun 29, 2009)

vagabundo said:


> I picture a horrible war with two lines of impaled NPCs lining the road to Waterdeep - a smoking ruin of what it once was - and Elminister is at the head of an army of demons and orcs, a cruel war-master and tyrant.
> 
> Forgotten Dark-Realms. Or Forget the Realms you once knew or something....



Sunforgotten Darkrealms. The Dragon Elminster stalks the desert sands of Faerun, collecting his annual tribute of maidens from the seven city-states ruled by the Seven Sorcerer-Queen Sisters. 

Personally, I think Darkdragon Sunlance, in which cannibal kender discover defiling magic and launch a world-ravaging genocide against all the other sentient races, has the better metaplot.


----------



## vagabundo (Jun 29, 2009)

FireLance said:


> Sunforgotten Darkrealms. The Dragon Elminster stalks the desert sands of Faerun, collecting his annual tribute of maidens from the seven city-states ruled by the Seven Sorcerer-Queen Sisters.
> 
> Personally, I think Darkdragon Sunlance, in which cannibal kender discover defiling magic and launch a world-ravaging genocide against all the other sentient races, has the better metaplot.




I think we're nearly ready to pitch this baby. SCOTTTTTTTTTTTTTT................


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jun 29, 2009)

I've complained about this myself in several threads. I played in a YAhoogroups game (which is still going strong years and years later, to their credit) and had one full-fledged and a couple noviate canon lawyers in there. Man, it was a pain.

To be fair to FR, I like the map, I like many of the regions, and I like some of the things they do there. It has always caught my imagination far more than Ebberon or many other campaign settings, and the FRCS was one of the best first non-core books I bought for 3.0, and I have not regretted buying it to this day for all its idea goodness. 

The problem is playing FR with other people. If they are totally ignorant, like me, then it works well. If not, it does not, tothe point that for the last 8+ years of online gaming I have declined to join dozens of games due to a pair of simple letters in the game name or description. One is an 'F' You can guess the other.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 29, 2009)

I've never met one in real life, but I'm sure they exist. The sheer size of the realms encourages that type of fan. Y'know, really nerdy ones who love lots of pointless detail.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 29, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> but the biggest problem is that Ed greenwood himself endurces and helped push this out..If  you find his interview at the Tomb you will find a story he tells of the PCs being held by a king and about to be excuted...then elminster barges in and tells the king he must speak with him privatly right awya ((Of cource what king would dare refuse the sage of mary sue)) as el and the king went to a private room El winked at the PCs and motioned for them to run away...



Ed Greenwood is the queen of Mary Sues. The wink at the end is particularly fey and Greenwood-y. The whole damn place is a Canadian hippy free love swingers party inhabited by creepy old men who look like Gandalf.

Except naked.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 29, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> Ed Greenwood is the queen of Mary Sues. The wink at the end is particularly fey and Greenwood-y. The whole damn place is a Canadian hippy free love swingers party inhabited by creepy old men who look like Gandalf.
> 
> Except naked.




Yeah, umm, the thing is, did mid-Western TSR management realise this back in ca 1987 when they adopted Vancouverite Forgotten Realms and Greenwood as the new face of TSR?  It just seems mind-boggling to me.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 29, 2009)

S'mon said:


> Slightly OT - These tales of Ed - in his own words, usually - always make wonder to what extent his players can actually have enjoyed his game.  It just seems so appallingly bad GMing.






Doug McCrae said:


> Ed Greenwood is the queen of Mary Sues. The wink at the end is particularly fey and Greenwood-y.






S'mon said:


> Yeah, umm, the thing is, did mid-Western TSR management realise this back in ca 1987 when they adopted Vancouverite Forgotten Realms and Greenwood as the new face of TSR?  It just seems mind-boggling to me.




First I want to make sure everyone understands the Tomb Pod cast is not the first I herd of this sort of thing, however it is the only one I can back up with a recent quote...

But how can players who hate when there DMs railroad, mary sue and everything else even try to ask for them to do better, when the DM can come back with "The creater of the whole damn world agrees this is the RIGHT way to play it"


----------



## Nymrohd (Jun 29, 2009)

Ehm I am an FR canon Lawyer. But I only DM so it's not a problem. And yeah if I played in the realms I'd be a sun elf loremaster and I would be horrid!

I need to dig out Ed's full description of the marital rites of Sharess . . .


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Jun 29, 2009)

Well I have had one. I knew she was and at the start said " This is my realms there are many this one is mine. Unlearn what you know because fallowing wild tells from some volo guide often gets one killed"

 So she wanted to make a bard , mostly so he could spout off her vast setting lore it seems. Lets just say she makes to many  "well I know this is there as it was in book x type remarks and   dies alone in a deadend sewer ally eaten by wererats looking for a secret door she "knew "was there. She whinned  she cried  she said I "cheated"  WE yelled  , she cussed  I cussed told her she had been warned she got off mad and left.

Last time I had that issue.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 29, 2009)

Hunter In Darkness said:


> The other players knowing me dropped it and did not go with her. She dies alone in a dead in sewer ally eaten by wererats with no secret door to be found. She whinned  she cried  she said I "cheated"  WE yelled  so she cussed  iI cussed told her she had been warned she got off mad and left.
> 
> Last time I had that issue.




great story...but what do you do if that player happened to be eaither your best friend or your roommate??? You know becuse I can't treat them that way...I can't tell them to leaave my game, heck one of them lives where I run my game...

It is easy to handle problem players of any type when you can just throw on a game face and be impartial DM...when they are people close to you who you need to still have a good relationship with after game...not so easy


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 29, 2009)

FireLance said:


> Sunforgotten Darkrealms. The Dragon Elminster stalks the desert sands of Faerun, collecting his annual tribute of maidens from the seven city-states ruled by the Seven Sorcerer-Queen Sisters.
> 
> Personally, I think Darkdragon Sunlance, in which cannibal kender discover defiling magic and launch a world-ravaging genocide against all the other sentient races, has the better metaplot.




Dude. You win.


----------



## Midknightsun (Jun 29, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> great story...but what do you do if that player happened to be eaither your best friend or your roommate??? You know becuse I can't treat them that way...I can't tell them to leaave my game, heck one of them lives where I run my game...
> 
> It is easy to handle problem players of any type when you can just throw on a game face and be impartial DM...when they are people close to you who you need to still have a good relationship with after game...not so easy




To throw out my 2c, in that situation you make it very clear that your FR is not going to always, or maybe ever follow cannon.  Ask your friend if they understand and are willing to accept that.  If they say no, then you may want to look at a different campaign setting for your group.  If they say yes, I would also conditionally add that if it becomes difficult for them to accept down the road anyway, the campaign may need to end--and don't be afraid to do so if they can't keep to the agreement.

That, or start a homebrew campaign setting called "Absent Minded- Provinces" that bears a striking similarity to a certain other fantasy setting. . . . but different


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Jun 29, 2009)

well she was, but she does not play in our games. I tell my players that it is my version. Kinda like  sliders if you will. while the players may know of it I will be changing stings to suit my version. Just go with the flow and if they want to use what they know is right ask me, but do not assume it is right

I told her this she was mad at me for a long while over it, but she was warned. I gave her many ways out before her death but she just "knew" that damned door was there. 


The best thing I can tell you is sit them down and let them know it's not as written and what they know may be wrong, place and poeple may be vastly different. It normally helps


----------



## AllisterH (Jun 29, 2009)

Heh...I guess someone has to stick up for the canon lawyers...

If you're going to say "I run the Forgotten Realms" and pretty much change stuff around, why not at the outset simply say "This is a homebrew that I took elements from FR" or take the 4e approach "This is a FR over X years into the future, everything is the same but different"

This way the canon lawyers don't necessarily feel like the DM is against them but also they can get more enjoyment as they notice the differences and hell you can even incorporate it into the story 

"Wait, there used to a small village of halflings by this lake. There's now an entire forst infested with formorians? What the hell happened to the hallflings...I got to find out"

- adventure seed that both the canon and DM get to enjoy


----------



## Nymrohd (Jun 29, 2009)

Also a canon lawyer that allows his character information he should not have in game is not a problem because he is a canon lawyer, he is a problem because he is a bad player.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jun 29, 2009)

All in all, I find the Mary Sue DM to be a more common problem in FR games than the canon lawyer, though when it happens a canon lawyer is much worse.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 29, 2009)

For my Star Wars game, I took the alt-universe approach, more or less, and ran my game as "What if the Empire pulled in R2 and 3PO's escape pod with a tractor beam?"

It was a pretty satisfying campaign and pretty much vanquished all canon-lawyering.

It'd only work with a setting I'm vaguely familiar with, though.  I don't even know enough Realms to figure out a good point of divergence. 

-O


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Jun 29, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Heh...I guess someone has to stick up for the canon lawyers...
> 
> If you're going to say "I run the Forgotten Realms" and pretty much change stuff around, why not at the outset simply say "This is a homebrew that I took elements from FR" or take the 4e approach "This is a FR over X years into the future, everything is the same but different"
> 
> ...




well I am a canon guy. However when I run a game if I say there is no door hidden being the old well at the halfway inn...there is no door there. If I can't change stuff I might as well be playing a video game.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 29, 2009)

While I am sure that canon lawyers are a difficulty for some DMs, I am not at all sure that's the reason for the reboot.

Someone correct me if they can find a direct quote, for I can't seem to find it...

But the point was not to save DMs from their canon lawyers.  The point was to make it so WotC writers don't have to work under the burden of decades of canon.  That sort of load stifles creativity, you know.

If WotC did not reboot, the customers would have every reason to expect that the new and old material would fit together seamlessly.  If the new stuff didn't match the old, WotC would take a lot of flack, and rightfully so.  But really, folks, good writing and design is hard enough without having to match decades worth of stuff you didn't yourself create.  

So, WotC took a sane course - reboot.  Yes, they take some flack and disappoint some folks, but their writers get to move forward unfettered by unrealistic expectations.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jun 29, 2009)

Umbran said:


> While I am sure that canon lawyers are a difficulty for some DMs, I am not at all sure that's the reason for the reboot.
> 
> Someone correct me if they can find a direct quote, for I can't seem to find it...
> 
> ...




On the same vein though, WotC has so far avoided releasing reams of continuity porn like they did in previous editions.


----------



## kitsune9 (Jun 29, 2009)

wingsandsword said:


> This is about the so-called "canon lawyer", the person with huge archives of Forgotten Realms knowledge in their head that not only knows obscure minutiae of Faerun and Abeir-Toril, they also expect any FR game to use all of this.  They are notorious for makin an issue out of when something comes up in a game that contradicts something they know about the setting, especially something that most players would consider a minor detail.
> 
> I've heard a lot of theories/explanations that this was one of the big reasons for the gutting/nuking of the Realms for 4e, that these "canon lawyers" were making life miserable on DM's that couldn't keep up with the vast lore of the Forgotten Realms (that frankly, nobody except maybe somebody who was paid to do so by WotC could be expected to completely keep up with), so they jumped the timeline ahead 100+ years, killed off or drove mads loads of people and slaughtered a good number of deities all as a giant reset switch to invalidate tons of canon so DMs could run Forgotten Realms canonically without worrying about what was written before.
> 
> ...




I've never met one of these guys. I've read lots and lots of FR books and really loved the setting, but had no problem with someone running FR and hammered out a campaign to their own tastes. Did they break lots of canon, of course, but the mods were fun and it didn't bother me. One of the "broken canon" games was playing a bunch of clones of Elminster, Drizzt, Fzoul, and a couple of other famous names and through an accidental explosion at the magical lab where we were created, we escaped. We had to forge our own memories, classes, and identities and it was a total blast.


----------



## ggroy (Jun 29, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> On the same vein though, WotC has so far avoided releasing reams of continuity porn like they did in previous editions.




By "continuity porn", are your referring to all those 3E/3.5E D&D splatbooks published for Forgotten Realms and Eberron?


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jun 29, 2009)

ggroy said:


> By "continuity porn", are your referring to all those 3E/3.5E D&D splatbooks published for Forgotten Realms and Eberron?




The novels themselves would be the other half of "continuity porn"


----------



## MichaelSomething (Jun 29, 2009)

continuity porn as defined by TVTropes.


----------



## ggroy (Jun 29, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> The novels themselves would be the other half of "continuity porn"




I remember the days when the 1E AD&D Forgotten Realms grey box setting was first released.  I didn't have the grey box at the time, but I played briefly in a friend's 1E AD&D game which used it as a setting.  Back then, there were not many Forgotten Realms novels published yet.  It was actually very nice to be playing in a new setting with very little legacy baggage.

One reason I really like Paizo/Pathfinder's Golarion setting at the present time, is that it is relatively new and fresh.  It reminds me a lot of the days when the Forgotten Realms setting was first released.

In most likelikhood, I may very well end up changing my mind about Golarion if Paizo ever starts releasing novels written in the Golarion setting.  With a line of regular Golarion novels being published, it may very well end up suffering the same fate that Forgotten Realms fell into over the last two decades.  This same fate may also happen anyways, with more and more Pathfinder adventure paths and modules being published which end up being perceived as official Golarion canon.

This neverending problem of more and more canon, while producing "setting lawyers" in the process, can easily turn off somebody from a setting altogether.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jun 29, 2009)

MichaelSomething said:


> continuity porn as defined by TVTropes.




Earlier editions' Forgotten Realms was particularly guilty of Pandering to the Base as defined by TVTropes.


----------



## Nymrohd (Jun 29, 2009)

The thing is, WotC has access to at least a dozen writers who are experts in anything FR. They wrote the best 3.5 FR books and novels after all. I don't think they would have had any issue keeping up with the Realms canon. And the main issue I have with the timeleap is the dozens of very interesting storylines that were simply sundered. And they were not the stupid railroady NPC storylines either but rather the resurgence of several kingdoms, the resolution of many villain plots and all the adventure these promise.


----------



## Derulbaskul (Jun 29, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> The novels themselves would be the other half of "continuity porn"




I maintain that it is the novels that cause all the problems. Staying abreast of the Realms is quite simple if you only rely on the game books but the novels are a problem (in part because many of the earlier ones are turgid dreck).

I try to run a canon game as much as possible but, by the same token, I'm enjoying my attempts to run a post-Spellplague 4E game neither aided nor hindered by canon.

I always tell my players that the game will be as close to canon as possible but the novels will be ignored.

(And folks... some of us are semi-autistic arch-pedants. It's "canon" unless we're talking about a big gun.)


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 29, 2009)

Nymrohd said:


> The thing is, WotC has access to at least a dozen writers who are experts in anything FR. They wrote the best 3.5 FR books and novels after all. I don't think they would have had any issue keeping up with the Realms canon.




Actually, some WotC freelancers have personally mentioned on these very forums that writing to the library of FR canon had become increasingly burdensome because it required an unseemly amount of fact-checking and research far in excess of that demanded by other RPG writing projects.


----------



## Nymrohd (Jun 29, 2009)

That does sound like an issue and I have to admit I know nothing of how WotC assigns projects. There just are certain writers who I'd expect do not need to do much research to write a book in FR and I don't see why they could not limit FR projects to those, given that they usually have produced better books.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 29, 2009)

Nymrohd said:


> That does sound like an issue and I have to admit I know nothing of how WotC assigns projects. There just are certain writers who I'd expect do not need to do much research to write a book in FR and I don't see why they could not limit FR projects to those, given that they usually have produced better books.




I suspect it's because most of the FR novel authors know little or nothing about writing game supplements (these things are two entirely different beasts), and the few freelance game designers who know FR inside and out are, well. . . freelancers (meaning that they may not be available for a project when WotC needs them).


----------



## National Acrobat (Jun 29, 2009)

I have run across a couple at the RL game table, and a few in online games that I run. I always throw out the disclaimer for anyone and everyone when I start at Realms game that I don't know nor care to know all of the canon, and that it's 'my realms interpretation', i.e 'objects in the mirror may be closer than they appear, your mileage may vary, see store for details' because I still use the Grey Boxed set from 1E, which was fabulous. It gave little snippets on each area and person, and it was up to the GM to fill in the rest. I've had lots of players thank me for this approach, and I've had a few people decline to play in my realms games online after reading that. A simple sentence like that can make all the difference.


----------



## Faraer (Jun 29, 2009)

S'mon said:


> Slightly OT - These tales of Ed - in his own words, usually - always make wonder to what extent his players can actually have enjoyed his game.  It just seems so appallingly bad GMing.



Given that his main campaign's still going after 30-odd years. and the uniformly enthusiastic reports of both his regular players and those at convention and library games he's DMed, we know that his players enjoy his DMing very much.







> I also wonder about the thinking in TSR at the time they chose Ed and his setting to be, effectively, the new face of TSR, replacing Gygax and Greyhawk.  Was this deliberate, moving away from Gygax's pseudo-malevolent GMing & rather bleak setting?  Did they not know, or think, about the implications of what we now call Mary Sue-ism?  Did they think "Well it's like Gandalf, saving the hobbits.  No fun if your hobbit gets killed..."?



You're blowing that one tiny, mischaracterized aspect out of all context and proportion.







GMforPowergamers said:


> But how can players who hate when there DMs railroad, mary sue and everything else even try to ask for them to do better, when the DM can come back with "The creater of the whole damn world agrees this is the RIGHT way to play it"



This is complete fantasy: far from either of those two things, Ed's DMing is extremely open-ended and player-driven; "Suffice it to say that the “home” Realms campaign is far more intrigue and plots upon plots and roleplaying daily life and commerce and politics and the like than it is drawing swords and hacking monsters."


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 30, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Heh...I guess someone has to stick up for the canon lawyers...



 fair is fair, they are not all bad...



> If you're going to say "I run the Forgotten Realms" and pretty much change stuff around, why not at the outset simply say "This is a homebrew that I took elements from FR"




see this is the arguement that makes the most sense...If I go to play in a star trek game, and I am told the Fedration is at war with the vulcons, and that USS Enterpirse B is captianed by Capt Tash Yar...I don't think I could take it seriusly...


See this is why I homebrew most of the time...You see if I say we are playing in FR or Ebberon, or any other setting it sets up some expactations...on the other hand if I say my new world is realms like...it allows the tone without the history...



Faraer said:


> You're blowing that one tiny, mischaracterized aspect out of all context and proportion.



no, now again I will say I can not provide anything but my word but I have herd these stories before...I cane tell you search for the Tomb pod cast with him...he says that it is the CORRECT way to hanndle Elminster in your games... 



> This is complete fantasy: far from either of those two things, Ed's DMing is extremely open-ended and player-driven;



 Yea , except when Mary sue shows up...becuse gods know that a King will stop what he is doing (screwing over PCs to keep it in perspective) to take an urgent 'call' (not on the phone but in person) from elminster...and all of it is to let the PCs escape when they could not without him...



> "Suffice it to say that the “home” Realms campaign is far more intrigue and plots upon plots and roleplaying daily life and commerce and politics and the like than it is drawing swords and hacking monsters."




So give a counter example...an artical he wrote, and interview he gave where elminster...no change that...any of the big superheros of the realms where used in a way that the PCs mattered at all...I ask only 1 example becuse that is all I can give as well...


I thank Gary Gygax, Ed Greenwood, and many others for creating awsome worlds...but that doesn't mean I agree with everything they do.


----------



## marune (Jun 30, 2009)

Faraer said:


> "Suffice it to say that the “home” Realms campaign is far more intrigue and plots upon plots and roleplaying daily life and commerce and politics and the like than it is drawing swords and hacking monsters."




There is worse than DMs badly imitating Ed with Mary-Sue characters, the ones trying to replicate this simulationist "roleplaying daily life is so much better than roleplaying combat" style.



			
				Faraer said:
			
		

> Ed's DMing is extremely open-ended and player-driven;




Player-driven is a very good thing, but I'm not sure I am seeing this in THO's reports.


----------



## marune (Jun 30, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> Yea , except when Mary sue shows up...becuse gods know that a King will stop what he is doing (screwing over PCs to keep it in perspective) to take an urgent 'call' (not on the phone but in person) from elminster...and all of it is to let the PCs escape when they could not without him...




There is one simple of using "powerful" NPCs to save the PC's life without frustrating them : letting the player's call for them !

If Gandalf/Dumbledore/Elminster/etc. comes to the rescue when Frodo/Harry's player call on its relationship to the former (the ending of the fifth Harry Potter book is a good example), the players don't feel useless anymore.


----------



## DaveMage (Jun 30, 2009)

I can certainly understand why FR "Canon Lawyers" exist.

I mean, they've probably spent a lot of money - not to mention a lot of time - on FR books.  It's quite understandable that they'd want to adventure in a world in which they've invested so much.  

To have some DM change that which they know is undoubtedly disappointing, and diminsihes the fun they thought they'd have in such a game.  

Of course, one doesn't even have to be knowledgable about all the Realms to be a "Canon Lawyer" either.  Even if they'd just read a supplement (or novel) or two and know that person X plays a particular part in an area, it could be very disappointing if the DM says person X doesn't exist in that area.

Personally, I think that if a DM is not fully versed in a setting, then they shouldn't run it for knowledgable fans of that setting - unless, of course, the players are fine with the DM's lack of knowledge.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 30, 2009)

skeptic said:


> There is one simple of using "powerful" NPCs to save the PC's life without frustrating them : letting the player's call for them !
> 
> If Gandalf/Dumbledore/Elminster/etc. comes to the rescue when Frodo/Harry call on its relationship to the former (the ending of the fifth Harry Potter book is a good example), the players don't feel useless anymore.




yes, and sometimes it works well (especialy in books/movies/fiction where the writer controls it all)...sometimes it just pisses the DM off though to...


Again my example of (A real game I ran) I had 6th/7th level PCs who went into a dungeon following an evil wizard who had just wreck a bunch of stuff...through the cource of the dungeon (and a nother level or 2) the PCs found out he was a red wizard...He had been part of a group sent out in advance of there invasion...They were going to martch out with thousands of undead and constructs by the end of the year and begin to start a whole war...My intent was for the PCs to try to stop this...BUT there intent was to make the following rounds (First symbul...she I guess is the ruler/archmage that is always fighting them...then elminster...then the lords of waterdeep) when they got to symbol I had her tell them she didn't care...opps I guess that is way out of character...this lead to the argument of I don't want chosen of mystra in my games solving the plot...so I had elmister on a nother plane...so they pulled out 5 or 6 more names I never even herd of before...that was what ended my game...


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 30, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> I mean, they've probably spent a lot of money - not to mention a lot of time - on FR books.  It's quite understandable that they'd want to adventure in a world in which they've invested so much.
> 
> To have some DM change that which they know is undoubtedly disappointing, and diminsihes the fun they thought they'd have in such a game.




see this is the real problem...there is no badguy here...Player A Player B Player C all sit down to play the game, if A has read the setting back and forward and expects it to be the setting, B knows most but iisn't really that into the setting, and C knows nothing of it...they all have diffrent expactations... If the DM says "X and Y don't work like this" then they know...but if the DM doesn't know waht to say or disallow it get hard.

Imagin you sit down to play Star trek in the Dominon war...but the DM never watched even a min of DS9...you expect changling infltrators, and cardasian enemies.
       when you sit down an NPC acts weird...you jump to test for changling the DM say "What are you doing??" or worse just react in game with people thinking you are crazy...and why becuse he didn't know it could happen, so he thinks your weird...

now put it back in the realms you can't change 20+ year of history and not expect fans to look at you like you grew a second head...


----------



## marune (Jun 30, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> yes, and sometimes it works well (especialy in books/movies/fiction where the writer controls it all)...sometimes it just pisses the DM off though to...




Or in RPGs where the division of power between the GM and the players is less ackward than in D&D (any edition).


----------



## Faraer (Jun 30, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> So give a counter example...an artical he wrote, and interview he gave where elminster...no change that...any of the big superheros of the realms where used in a way that the PCs mattered at all...I ask only 1 example becuse that is all I can give as well...



They almost never appear in Realms scenarios; on the contrary, it's always been indicated, for instance, that by default, PCs who knock on Elminster's door will usually find he's just not in (he spends much/most of his time walking other worlds). Still, there's the play guidelines in _The Seven Sisters_, "Realmslore: Storm Silverhand's Quieter Days", and the scenarios in _Spellbound_. Elminster's principal role in Realmslore is not as any kind of NPC but as an unreliable narrator, one of several devices intended to further assure DMs that their campaigns needn't match published lore. On the other hand, in the short stories (and vignettes in _Elminster in Hell_) Elminster is used in, the other characters clearly 'matter' very much -- indeed, one of the hallmarks of the Realms is a kind of humanistic egalitarianism in which common folk are quite as important as the bold and the mighty.

Your disproportionate focus on this handful of characters is understandable because TSR and Wizards have encouraged it, but that's not the same as the world of Toril.







skeptic said:


> There is worse than DMs badly imitating Ed with Mary-Sue characters, the ones trying to replicate this simulationist "roleplaying daily life is so much better than roleplaying combat" style.



I think the roleplaying-over-rules intrigue-heavy style is a perfectly fine one.

(Edit: Just as it's a valid preference to use highly detailed worlds, snide 'continuity porn' accusations notwithstanding).







> Player-driven is a very good thing, but I'm not sure I am seeing this in THO's reports.



The basic structure of Ed's campaign is a layered web of rumours (the 'current clack' which was such a notable feature of pre-3E Realms sourcebooks and articles, like the month-by-month run-down of 1356 and 1357 DR in the Old Grey Box) and closer-to intrigue from which the players take up the things that grab them: everything from trials (as in an old _Dragon_ article on law in D&D) to dungeon-delving (for specific PC-chosen reasons rather than general exploration) to training apprentices or maintaining individual investments in distant cities. There's one particularly evocative post where Ed laid out a typical (actually simplified) set of situations and hooks from one point in the Knights campaign, but I'm having trouble digging it out.


----------



## Faraer (Jun 30, 2009)

---


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 30, 2009)

Faraer said:


> Your disproportionate focus on this handful of characters is understandable because TSR and Wizards have encouraged it, but that's not the same as the world of Toril.




OTOH, the only Toril that most people know is that which has actually been published — and that Toril is undoubtedly one of Mary Sue NPCs.


----------



## Faraer (Jun 30, 2009)

'Mary Sue' is used so vaguely that I'm not sure what you mean by that. Speaking of Ed's work, if you're referring to the core meaning of a perfect self-insertion egoboo character (originally and still primarily in someone else's world as a kind of one-upmanship), that's a long-ago-debunked factual mistake. If you mean something looser, I won't argue your interpretation -- I think the sources, and Ed, speak well enough for themselves.


----------



## Burrito Al Pastor (Jun 30, 2009)

If you look at the Eberron books, you may notice something interesting - there's a lot of "Some people say" and "There are theories" and the like. Eberron is a setting that loves to put "maybe" and "usually" qualifiers on information about the setting, and I think it's much easier to use because of this. They keep the amount of objective information to a minimum, for the most part - cosmology cycles and detailed region maps were the biggest issues in 3e that I saw - and there's a lot of things where very little canon is even _possible._ (My personal favorite here is Xen'drik, which is magically unmappable.)

I think this style makes Eberron both easier to run and more fertile for ideas for GMs. If you want to do something with some famous NPC in FR (or Greyhawk, to some degree), you have very little control over how that character works; if your PCs meet Elminster (or Mordenkainen, for that matter) and he's a lich, your players will cry foul. If your PCs meet, say, the Lord of Blades, and he's actually a big warforged suit operated by a team of Tiny telepathic gnomes... well, your players don't have a whole lot of room to say "Hey, that's not right!", because 98% of the lore about the Lord of Blades is rumours.


----------



## Faraer (Jun 30, 2009)

It's odd that Wizards did that with Eberron at the same time as they removed or downplayed the multiple framing devices that serve a similar purpose in the Realms: the discussion of given NPC levels as provisional possibilities in the _DM's Sourcebook_, the use of current clack rather than hard news, mortal ignorance about the gods and the afterlife, local picaresque storytelling more than the eventual ongoing timeline of large-scale 'canonical' 'major' events, the unreliable narrators who explicitly or implicitly conveyed all Realmslore -- so far from an all-knowing 'Mary Sue', a big part of the point of Elminster's early appearances especially is that he's fallible. "On my word as a sage nothing within these pages is false, but not all of it may prove to be true."


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jun 30, 2009)

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...-gameforked-thread-i-owe-wizards-apology.html

I started a thread with some similiar thoughts.

I still 'don't get it'.

Maybe I'm just too much of a jerk but if a player tried to hold my GMing hostage to his imagination, I suspect he'd be playing with another GM quickly.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 30, 2009)

wingsandsword said:


> /snip
> I've ran into them in message boards, like when I once said something about the Forgotten Realms that is contradicted by some obscure public e-mail Ed Greenwood from years ago that was dutifully archived, and I've heard some horror stories about them here, but I do really wonder, just how common are they in typical Forgotten Realms D&D play?




The trick is, like most things, it only takes one.  It only takes that one guy to really piddle in your corn flakes.  I've never had a FR canon lawyer, but, I've run into players who would scream and holler if I used a creature outside of its climate/terrain entry in the 2e MM.  

It can be a real PITA.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 30, 2009)

Nymrohd said:


> That does sound like an issue and I have to admit I know nothing of how WotC assigns projects. There just are certain writers who I'd expect do not need to do much research to write a book in FR and I don't see why they could not limit FR projects to those, given that they usually have produced better books.




Well, yes and no.

Over the what two and a half decades of FR material, we're looking at tens of thousands of pages of books.  Only the latter half of which would have been produced with any sort of electronic backing - the early stuff was hand written.  I imagine that little or none of it has been collected, and then an electronic, searchable database created. It would be virtually impossible for anyone to have more than a glancing familiarity with the source material.

Heck, even looking at Greyhawk, which has far, far less canon than FR, and you see all sorts of mistakes and contradictions come up.  S K Reynolds Scarlet Brotherhood background is directly contradicted by earlier material, for example.

Trying to untangle the unholy mess that is FR with thousands of pages, hundreds of thousands of words, just isn't possible for any one guy.



> 'Mary Sue' is used so vaguely that I'm not sure what you mean by that. Speaking of Ed's work, if you're referring to the core meaning of a perfect self-insertion egoboo character (originally and still primarily in someone else's world as a kind of one-upmanship), that's a long-ago-debunked factual mistake. If you mean something looser, I won't argue your interpretation -- I think the sources, and Ed, speak well enough for themselves.




Ok, instead of Mary Sue, how about a self written character that is better than every protagonist, in every possible way?  Elminister is more powerful, more sexy, knows more, and can do pretty much anything.  And he's NOT the protagonist.  If that's not a textbook example of Mary Sue, I don't know what is.


----------



## Faraer (Jun 30, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Ok, instead of Mary Sue, how about a self written character that is better than every protagonist, in every possible way?  Elminister is more powerful, more sexy, knows more, and can do pretty much anything.  And he's NOT the protagonist.  If that's not a textbook example of Mary Sue, I don't know what is.



Again, the sources -- which I know quite well -- just don't bear that out. With the possible exception of 'knows more' (he is, after all, first and foremost a sage), I could list many, many characters who are 'more powerful', 'more sexy', or 'better' in multifarious other ways than he is, and situations where he hasn't been able to do what he wanted.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 30, 2009)

Faraer said:


> Speaking of Ed's work, if you're referring to the core meaning of a perfect self-insertion egoboo character (originally and still primarily in someone else's world as a kind of one-upmanship), that's a long-ago-debunked factual mistake.




Really? I've never seen it debunked. I've seen people _claim_ that Elminster isn't a Mary Sue character, but how he is actually written belies this claim in almost every possible way. If you have some _proof_ (i.e., something other than people saying "Not true!") that Elminster isn't a Mary Sue character, I'd love to see it.


----------



## Faraer (Jun 30, 2009)

From what I've read online, most of the people who think/thought so are/were under the impression that Ed chose to write novels about Elminster, and openly uses him as something of an alter ego. Those things are what definitely isn't true.

They think he's Ed's favourite character. While that can't be proved, he's said many times that he's not, it doesn't seem to be an idea shared by anyone who's worked with him, and I've never seen even a detailed argument made to the contrary in hundreds of these threads. As I say, the vaguer feeling that El is Mary Sueish is a matter of personal impressions. Mine is that very few people would have got that one if not for this meme that has a life of its own separate from the books.

I've never expected to change the mind of people fixed in some of these ideas, just to encourage people who haven't made their mind up not to believe them blindly (as some unquestionably have) and instead to look for themselves.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 30, 2009)

Faraer said:


> Those things are what definitely isn't true.




Why? Because you say so? 



> As I say, the vaguer feeling that El is Mary Sueish is a matter of personal impressions.




Well, using the _commonly accepted_ definiton of "Mary Sue," Elminster certainly is one. I mean, several people have cited reasons in this thread how he (i.e., Elminster) conforms to nearly all aspects of that definition and all you can come back with is a "Does not!" defense. That's not very convincing. 



> I've never expected to change the mind of people fixed in some of these ideas, just to encourage people who haven't made their mind up not to believe them blindly (as some unquestionably have) and instead to look for themselves.




Canon lawyers assemble!


----------



## Faraer (Jun 30, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> Why? Because you say so?



Because Ed, Rich Baker, Steven Schend etc. say so and no one in TSR/Wizards/Canadian circles says anything to the contrary. In other words, to get epistemological about it, the kind of evidence we have for most behind-the-scenes gaming history, except less unclear and controversial.







> Well, using the _commonly accepted_ definiton of "Mary Sue," Elminster certainly is one. I mean, several people have cited reasons in this thread how he (i.e., Elminster) conforms to nearly all aspects of that definition and all you can come back with is a "Does not!" defense. That's not very convincing.



I had a look back and didn't see any such posts, and certainly no commonly accepted definition. Seems to me I'm the one who's kept bringing the discussion to specific, arguable points, but I've been mistaken. (Not to mention, I'm not the one making the claim.)







> Canon lawyers assemble!



What? I hope not.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Jun 30, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> I can certainly understand why FR "Canon Lawyers" exist.
> 
> I mean, they've probably spent a lot of money - not to mention a lot of time - on FR books.  It's quite understandable that they'd want to adventure in a world in which they've invested so much.
> 
> ...




Just because i have a couple of books about, say, Eberron doesn´t mean that i have to implement everything they present into my game. Canon layers want to force you to do that - and i´ve always hated that with a passion. And to make it clear:

I do NOT want to be "fully versed in a setting".​
I want to find interesting nuggets around which to build a campaign. The idea that "incorporate everything, all published stuff has to be part of your world" is a fallacity extraordinaire. 

And it just kills the fun. Do you know how much in-depth information is available about the Zhentarim? And the Zhents, of course, because that is something else. As are the Zhentilar. And the Black Network. 

I´m not going to feel that i HAVE to implement that stuff into my game. As a possibility - nice. But if a community produces the idea that ALL THAT has to be part of the presentation of a world: count me out. Back to the Grey Box, thank you.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 30, 2009)

Faraer said:


> Because Ed, Rich Baker, Steven Schend etc. say so and no one in TSR/Wizards/Canadian circles says anything to the contrary.




Again, I think I'll need cites for that, as I've never seen those claims. Right now, I just your word for it. I haven't invested years of my life studying FR canon, though. 



> I had a look back and didn't see any such posts, and certainly no commonly accepted definition.




Look at the post by Lancelot, several of the posts by Gmforpowergamers, etc. Many of them mention the often idealized, nigh-ominipotent, nature of Elminster. All of which are known and recognized traits of Mary Sue/Gary Stu characters. 



> Seems to me I'm the one who's kept bringing the discussion to specific, arguable points, but I've been mistaken.




I haven't seen you post any specific, arguable, points. As Obryn mentioned, it seems that you're just nay-saying. 



> What? I hope not.




Well, what you're doing is arguing FR canon, claiming (repeatedly now) to be some kind of authority on the matter while simulataneously stating that everybody who disagrees with you is incorrect. If that isn't "canon lawyering," I don't know what is.


----------



## Orius (Jun 30, 2009)

Nymrohd said:


> I need to dig out Ed's full description of the marital rites of Sharess . . .




Huh?  They even bother with marital rites?



MichaelSomething said:


> continuity porn as defined by TVTropes.




Normally, I would complain about linking to TV Tropes because of my lack of willpower, but I was going to go to that page anyway.  Now I don't have to bother searching for it. 



thecasualoblivion said:


> Earlier editions' Forgotten Realms was particularly guilty of Pandering to the Base as defined by TVTropes.




Yup.  And there goes three more hours of my time.  *flush* 



Derulbaskul said:


> I maintain that it is the novels that cause all the problems. Staying abreast of the Realms is quite simple if you only rely on the game books but the novels are a problem (in part because many of the earlier ones are turgid dreck).




I'd say the problem is Dragonlance. 

Before DL, there was just Greyhawk, the bits and pieces of the Known World that existed at the time, and prehaps the people playing Empire of the Petal Throne.  Gary set up Greyhawk as a kind of sandbox where DMs culd build their own campaigns.  Then came Dragonlance, and it was a huge success.

And since this was right around the time when Gary lost control of TSR, management felt the Dragonlance approach was the best way to make money.  So that's why they bought the Realms from Ed, and why 2e saw the mushrooming of settings.  They wanted to make money selling modules, campaign sets, books, calendars and whatnot all tied into these different worlds.  The Realms ended up being successful, while the others not so much, even if they gained their fanbases.  

The problem is, unlike other big shared universes like say Star Trek, various comic book universes, Star Wars and so on, is that an RPG setting needs to be a bit more open-ended.  It's hard to do that with tons of continuity porn flying around, because each DM will have his or her own inpirations for developing a campaign, and because the nature of an RPG requires things to be open ended, otherwise you have to set things on rails. 

I'd say WotC's current strategy seems to be an updated version of the one behind the old World of Grewhawk box.  Release the basic setting itself, and let the DMs develop it on their own, excpet now they have official fan websites to offer new material since they know players interested in the setting are going to look for material on the web.


----------



## Faraer (Jun 30, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> Again, I think I'll need cites for that, as I've never seen those claims. Right now, I just your word for it. I haven't invested years of my life studying FR canon, though.



You're right, I sometimes overestimate how well-known this is. Here are a few quickly scrounged citations: the interview in _Dragon_ #335, Candlekeep.com here (search for "No, of course not") and here, and a 1998 REALMS-L post which I can't find in the archive so I'll quote from:







> To forestall complaints from several correspondents that "I always
> write about my favorite characters," I may as well tell everyone that
> novelists for TSR submit outlines of their planned novels for
> editorial approval (how else could all the creative folks involved
> ...



Unfortunately, some of the information from Wizards people has been lost in wipes of the Wizards.com message boards.







> Look at the post by Lancelot, several of the posts by Gmforpowergamers, etc.



Ah, in the other thread. I did answer most of Gmforpowergamers's stuff until I stopped, and I missed Lancelot's. Well, of course Elminster's really powerful. I don't agree with all his interpretations, but that really is 'he said'/'she said', no? More to the point, I think, all this fuss about who's powerful is specifically a point of view of villains in the Realms, and not how Ed thinks -- just chalk and cheese ways of thinking. My quick citation there is the whole of _Elminster in Hell_.







> Well, what you're doing is arguing FR canon, claiming (repeatedly now) to be some kind of authority on the matter while simulataneously stating that everybody who disagrees with you is incorrect. If that isn't "canon lawyering," I don't know what is.



Of course I'm arguing, along with other people, about what Realms 'canon' _is_, that's part of this discussion. I dislike the basic idea of 'canon' and have argued strongly, here and in the past, for why it shouldn't in the least dictate or be required in individual campaigns.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 30, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> Look at the post by Lancelot, several of the posts by Gmforpowergamers, etc. Many of them mention the often idealized, nigh-ominipotent, nature of Elminster. All of which are known and recognized traits of Mary Sue/Gary Stu characters.




Plus the having sex with pretty well every powerful female NPC.  It comes across like Gandalf/Galadriel slash fanfic.  I'm no Realmsian, but I did get 2e Drow of Underdark and its opening/framing intro scene is El in the hot tub with some Drow matriarch!


----------



## S'mon (Jun 30, 2009)

Faraer said:


> Given that his main campaign's still going after 30-odd years. and the uniformly enthusiastic reports of both his regular players and those at convention and library games he's DMed, we know that his players enjoy his DMing very much.




Yes, it may well be that Ed has the gnomic charisma to pull this off.  It's still a terrible model for most GMs, though.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 30, 2009)

S'mon said:


> Plus the having sex with pretty well every powerful female NPC.  It comes across like Gandalf/Galadriel slash fanfic.  I'm no Realmsian, but I did get 2e Drow of Underdark and its opening/framing intro scene is El in the hot tub with some Drow matriarch!




Yeah. . . that stuff squicks me out, hence why I didn't mention it.


----------



## Faraer (Jun 30, 2009)

S'mon said:


> Yes, it may well be that Ed has the gnomic charisma to pull this off.  It's still a terrible model for most GMs, though.



If he did it all the time, and for the reasons given above, I agree, it would be. But that's one little quote out of a lot of information we have on his DMing.

Ah, I found the post I was looking for. Here's a better glimpse of the home Realms campaign: here and search for "not long after the Knights are settled in Shadowdale".







S'mon said:


> Plus the having sex with pretty well every powerful female NPC.  It comes across like Gandalf/Galadriel slash fanfic.  I'm no Realmsian, but I did get 2e Drow of Underdark and its opening/framing intro scene is El in the hot tub with some Drow matriarch!



This is one of those things that people confidently recite but just isn't so -- we're talking a handful (one sordid Wizards.com thread listed them) over a thousand years versus -- I don't know what you call 'powerful', but I could list hundreds. [Edit: Or you could look through the NPC lists at the Realms wiki.] Casual nudity (squick if you like) doesn't equal sex in Faerûn.


----------



## Parlan (Jun 30, 2009)

Faraer said:


> Casual nudity (squick if you like) doesn't equal sex in Faerûn.




I don't know about Faerun, but here in the really-real world, nekkid with a chick in a hot tub is about as close to equalling sex as you can get.

Seriously.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 30, 2009)

Faraer said:


> This is one of those things that people confidently recite but just isn't so -- we're talking a handful (one sordid Wizards.com thread listed them) over a thousand years...




I'm not talking about the official backstory, I'm talking about what I've actually seen "on-stage" in my limited exposure to El & the Realms.

As for "nudity =/= sex in the Realms", no that's not how it comes across at all.  That just seems disingenuous.  It's all terribly _nudge nudge wink wink know what I mean say no more_... the presentation of Realms nudity I've seen is not at all asexual, it's prurient.


----------



## Parlan (Jun 30, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> Personally, I think that if a DM is not fully versed in a setting, then they shouldn't run it for knowledgable fans of that setting - unless, of course, the players are fine with the DM's lack of knowledge.




"Fully versed" is a pretty high bar for DMs.  

I buy a published setting because something about it gets my creative juices flowing.  I buy it because any time my players say, "We head south.  What do we find?"  I can look at a map and answer them.  

I don't buy it to spend hours memorizing trivia so I will know what secret door is hidden in what inn, and what the name of every blacksmith/bar maid is.


----------



## amysrevenge (Jun 30, 2009)

No real opinion about the main issue here, except for this:

Are there people out there claiming that Ed didn't enjoy dressing up as Elminster at GenCon?  I met him there once, while he was in-costume and in-character, and he sure looked and acted like he was enjoying himself immensely...  Send the boy an Oscar if he was only pretending.


----------



## Faraer (Jun 30, 2009)

S'mon said:


> I'm not talking about the official backstory, I'm talking about what I've actually seen "on-stage" in my limited exposure to El & the Realms.



I didn't know how else to read "pretty well every powerful female NPC".







> As for "nudity =/= sex in the Realms", no that's not how it comes across at all.  That just seems disingenuous.  It's all terribly _nudge nudge wink wink know what I mean say no more_... the presentation of Realms nudity I've seen is not at all asexual, it's prurient.



I'm not saying it's always asexual. If it comes across as prurient to you, it's likely because the Code of Ethics meant there are indeed instances where nudity has stood in for sex in Realmslore, much as all the brothels were called festhalls. There are other instances where it's just open nakedness, which is rather confusing. But the underlying attitude, when it shows through the censorship, is a greater openness about sex than in most of our world. See the post here, for instance ("You know, I always wonder").







amysrevenge said:


> Are there people out there claiming that Ed didn't enjoy dressing up as Elminster at GenCon?  I met him there once, while he was in-costume and in-character, and he sure looked and acted like he was enjoying himself immensely...  Send the boy an Oscar if he was only pretending.



By all accounts he got a huge kick out of it, and the same (with multiple characters) in the 'Spin a Yarn' sessions, and when he DMs.


----------



## DaveMage (Jun 30, 2009)

Parlan said:


> "Fully versed" is a pretty high bar for DMs.
> 
> I buy a published setting because something about it gets my creative juices flowing.  I buy it because any time my players say, "We head south.  What do we find?"  I can look at a map and answer them.
> 
> I don't buy it to spend hours memorizing trivia so I will know what secret door is hidden in what inn, and what the name of every blacksmith/bar maid is.




And that's cool - as long as you're not DMing fans of the setting who want a DM with more knowledge of the setting.

But part of the appeal of the Realms to some people (not you apparently) is the fact that it *is* so detailed, and in their imagination, they've practically lived there.  It's likely to be less fun for them if you don't know the setting as imtimately.

Of course, if the players are willing you can always compromise.  If all you are familiar with is the campaign setting book only, then simply let them know that if something is not in the campaign setting book, then it's just a rumor.  (Maybe that secret door they think they know about is actually a trap to lure suckers [a.k.a. adventurers] to their doom - probably set up by the local thieves guild.)


----------



## Nymrohd (Jun 30, 2009)

The very definition of Mary Sue is a character that serves as the writer's avatar.


----------



## lrsach01 (Jun 30, 2009)

Corner Ed at GenCon and he'll be glad to tell you about his frustration with DM's miss handling Elminister. Ed's spoken several times at seminars that when he used Elminster, it was never as a Deus Ex Machina but rather to anger or poke his players. Elminster KNOWS all but he does share that knowledge and is rather busy himself so he chooses to deligate some things to adventuring groups. I wish I could lay my hands on one of MANY interviews Ed has done... maybe I can later. Feel need to cite my information....


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 30, 2009)

lrsach01 said:


> Corner Ed at GenCon and he'll be glad to tell you about his frustration with DM's miss handling Elminister.




It may well be true that Elminster is mis-handled by DMs other than Ed — but I'd argue that is because in the novels that Ed writes, Elminster is an idealized, over-sexed, near ominipotent being who is better at nearly everything than everybody else in the setting _and_ because official game products portray him in a similar manner, complete with 'special' mechanics all his own that allow him to operate outside of the normal D&D rules in ways that PCs (and other NPCs for that matter) _can't_. It's easy to blame bad DMs for Elminster, but IMO, they're clearly only a small part of the problem (possibly the _smallest_ part of the problem).


----------



## ST (Jun 30, 2009)

In literary criticism, if there are clear, obvious attributes to a body of work that the author himself strongly denies exist, then the critical articles talking about this stuff will often give the author's opinion. But they won't consider that a rebuttal in any way, it's just one data point.

There are a number of known quantities about the FR setting that are often cited as having been problematic for GMs in the past, and there's a number of factors that enter into it, from obsessive fans to supplement bloat to Hot Sexy Elminster Time, etc. etc. FR is what it is. How awesome and nice Ed Greenwood is and what a great GM he is is heart-warming, but not really related to the issues brought up by the OP. Set enough detailed guidebooks and franchise fiction in a setting and it can get choked and crowded no matter how it started out.

I'm biased, though, as I've intentionally never run any game ever in a canonical version of a setting. I respect people who love to celebrate setting detail, but it's not my bag.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 30, 2009)

Faraer said:


> Casual nudity (squick if you like) doesn't equal sex in Faerûn.



Here's a quote(1) from Ed Greenwood saying that it does.



> I can say I've had to adopt a writing style for TSR novels that isn't what it would be if left to myself. Nudity has appeared as a substitute (under the old Code of Ethics) for sex




(1)http://www.defragsrealms.com/times/archive/ftedint.html


----------



## Krensky (Jun 30, 2009)

An interesting detail I noticed regarding people's opinions of Elminster in this thread and the Mary Sue one, is that it seems to vary based on preferred play style.

I am not a Realsmhead. I enjoyed the setting, but I'm largely neutral about it and the characters. When I ran a FR game (about a decade ago) Elminster, The Seven, The Blackstaff, etc were plot devices and tools. That game was very narrative (in the sense it told a story) and the uber NPCs were useful for controling that. Blackstaff gave missions on one PC (a Harper), Storm fixed them up and gave them some hints after a TPK, etc. I'm essentially neutral on this, especially since I always took the view some of the Realmsfans here point out that Elminster is the narrator and is an unreliable one at that. "Just because Elminster or Volo said it, doesn't mean it's true or even what they believed to be true." That statement at the begining of the game stoped about three dozen canon arguments. They also speant a lot of time telling the PCs to go away and solve their own problems or that the party was how the powers that be were dealing with the problem.

The people who seem most vocal about the issues along with Elminster and the other uber NPC are those, and this is not a dig, whose commentary in other threads lead me to feel they prefer a playstyle diametrically opposed to the one I described.

I'm not trying to pidgeonhole anyone, it's just something I (think) I noticed and wondered about the correlation.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 30, 2009)

I'll say this for Ed Greenwood - although his writing is essentially erotic fanfic featuring a Mary Sue protagonist, at least it's not furry erotic fanfic with a Mary Sue. That's something.


----------



## Melan (Jun 30, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> I'll say this for Ed Greenwood - although his writing is essentially erotic fanfic featuring a Mary Sue protagonist, at least it's not furry erotic fanfic with a Mary Sue. That's something.



Damning with a faint praise, indeed.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 30, 2009)

Krensky said:


> I am not a Realsmhead. I enjoyed the setting, but I'm largely neutral about it and the characters.




That _really_ doesn't show. 



> The people who seem most vocal about the issues along with Elminster and the other uber NPC are those, and this is not a dig, whose commentary in other threads lead me to feel they prefer a playstyle diametrically opposed to the one I described.




Could be. I know that I personally enjoy a playstyle where NPCs _aren't_ actign as quest dispensers or otherwise being used to force the PCs into some specific course of action. 



> I'm not trying to pidgeonhole anyone, it's just something I (think) I noticed and wondered about the correlation.




Honestly, I do kind of wonder how you reached this conclusion as there has been precious little (if any) discussion of playstyles preferred by individual posters in this thread or the other until just now.


----------



## Krensky (Jun 30, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> That _really_ doesn't show.




I'm largely neutral about it. I am vehemently opposed to bad literary analysis, especially when it's being used as a thought terminating cliche.




jdrakeh said:


> Could be. I know that I personally enjoy a playstyle where NPCs _aren't_ actign as quest dispensers or otherwise being used to force the PCs into some specific course of action.
> 
> Honestly, I do kind of wonder how you reached this conclusion as there has been precious little (if any) discussion of playstyles preferred by individual posters in this thread or the other until just now.




By reading others posts and remembering things. In your case, you've said similar things to the first paragraph in other places. The games you discuss outside of D&D and the advice and commentary given in other topics. It really isn't that hard to come up with a working view on preferred play style for someone on the boards. It might be wrong, but an educated guess is easy to put together.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 30, 2009)

My biggest issue with canon lawyers and the large amount of information to draw upon is that it breaks my primary rule as a DM.  For me, my campaign runs under the Heisenburg principle.  If it hasn't been observed, it isn't true yet.  Until something has come out in play, it isn't fact.

But, this runs exactly opposite to how someone versed in the setting wants to the game to be run.  For that person, all the facts are fixed before you even sit down at the table.  If Book A says that Event B happened at Location C at Date D, then, by golly, if they happen to go to that location at that time, that event better durn well happen.

Sorry, I don't play that way.  My campaigns are much more fluid than that.  I write, revise, reject, reinstall, replay stuff all the time.  Sometimes during the session.  To me, nothing is written in stone until such time as it has come out during the game.

That's why I have such a difficult time playing in a setting like FR where there is just SO MUCH canon to deal with.  

Is Elminister an oversexed Marty Stue character?  Not in my Realms he's not.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 30, 2009)

Krensky said:


> An interesting detail I noticed regarding people's opinions of Elminster in this thread and the Mary Sue one, is that it seems to vary based on preferred play style.
> 
> I am not a Realsmhead. I enjoyed the setting, but I'm largely neutral about it and the characters. When I ran a FR game (about a decade ago) Elminster, The Seven, The Blackstaff, etc were plot devices and tools. That game was very narrative (in the sense it told a story) and the uber NPCs were useful for controling that. Blackstaff gave missions on one PC (a Harper), Storm fixed them up and gave them some hints after a TPK, etc. I'm essentially neutral on this, especially since I always took the view some of the Realmsfans here point out that Elminster is the narrator and is an unreliable one at that. "Just because Elminster or Volo said it, doesn't mean it's true or even what they believed to be true." That statement at the begining of the game stoped about three dozen canon arguments. They also speant a lot of time telling the PCs to go away and solve their own problems or that the party was how the powers that be were dealing with the problem.
> 
> The people who seem most vocal about the issues along with Elminster and the other uber NPC are those, and this is not a dig, whose commentary in other threads lead me to feel they prefer a playstyle diametrically opposed to the one I described.




Yes, I like an open style and the PCs as the Big Damn Heroes, so I don't like the Realms approach of uber-NPCs controlling everything and keeping plots on track, at all.


----------



## Krensky (Jun 30, 2009)

Hussar said:


> My biggest issue with canon lawyers and the large amount of information to draw upon is that it breaks my primary rule as a DM.  For me, my campaign runs under the Heisenburg principle.  If it hasn't been observed, it isn't true yet.  Until something has come out in play, it isn't fact.
> 
> But, this runs exactly opposite to how someone versed in the setting wants to the game to be run.  For that person, all the facts are fixed before you even sit down at the table.  If Book A says that Event B happened at Location C at Date D, then, by golly, if they happen to go to that location at that time, that event better durn well happen.
> 
> ...




Like I said. When the game starts, remind the players that Elminster (and by extension any point of view character that 'Ed' uses) is an unreliable narrator. He's insane. And he lies. He lies a lot.

"But... but... but Volo's Guide to Waterdeep said there was a secrete passage in this store room!"
"You believed something Volo wrote? Why? Roll initiative."

"Elminster's Ecologies said there was a Druid grove here."
"Maybe there was five centuries ago and he got confused. Or maybe he lied. Doesn't matter. There's not one here now. Oh look, there's the orcs. Roll initiative."


----------



## Hussar (Jun 30, 2009)

Krensky said:


> Like I said. When the game starts, remind the players that Elminster (and by extension any point of view character that 'Ed' uses) is an unreliable narrator. He's insane. And he lies. He lies a lot.
> 
> "But... but... but Volo's Guide to Waterdeep said there was a secrete passage in this store room!"
> "You believed something Volo wrote? Why? Roll initiative."
> ...




Oh, totally agree.  And that's how I play.  

But, looking at this thread and the thread about Appologies to Wizards (or something to that effect), a lot of people are pretty disappointed if you start straying from canon.  The argument goes, "what's the point of playing in this published setting if you're going to chuck out elements?  I want to play in Forgotten Realms, not 'Hussar's Realms Lite'".

Not that I particuarly agree with that point of view obviously, but, it is an issue.


----------



## Uzzy (Jun 30, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Oh, totally agree.  And that's how I play.
> 
> But, looking at this thread and the thread about Appologies to Wizards (or something to that effect), a lot of people are pretty disappointed if you start straying from canon.  The argument goes, "what's the point of playing in this published setting if you're going to chuck out elements?  I want to play in Forgotten Realms, not 'Hussar's Realms Lite'".
> 
> Not that I particuarly agree with that point of view obviously, but, it is an issue.




It's a matter of degree, really. I'm quite a fan of the Realms, but when it comes to playing in them, I'm perfectly happy for things to be changed around. If they are on a small scale, like the examples Krensky mentioned, then I expect those things to be different and tweaked to each DM's play style. 

If, however, they are of a larger scale, for example, Cormyr losing the War of the Devil Dragon, Shade dominating the Dalelands, Waterdeep never having existed, or, just for laughs, Cyric killing Mystra and causing a massive devastating wave of magic.. stuff to change the face of Faerún, then I'd expect those changes to be mentioned up front, as those are huge changes that really alter the nature of the Realms game I'd be playing in.


----------



## Krensky (Jun 30, 2009)

Uzzy said:


> It's a matter of degree, really. I'm quite a fan of the Realms, but when it comes to playing in them, I'm perfectly happy for things to be changed around. If they are on a small scale, like the examples Krensky mentioned, then I expect those things to be different and tweaked to each DM's play style.




I'm not exactly proud of it, but the likelihood of those tweaks in my game was directly proportional to how metagamey the players actions were. If they did something based solely on what one of the source books said, there was a good chance the source book was unreliable. Either wrong or not entirely correct.



Uzzy said:


> If, however, they are of a larger scale, for example, Cormyr losing the War of the Devil Dragon, Shade dominating the Dalelands, Waterdeep never having existed, or, just for laughs, Cyric killing Mystra and causing a massive devastating wave of magic.. stuff to change the face of Faerún, then I'd expect those changes to be mentioned up front, as those are huge changes that really alter the nature of the Realms game I'd be playing in.




Obviously. If you're going to change the rules and history of the world, you tell the players ahead of time. Similarly, players shouldn't expect history to unfold the same way if they're playing a 'historical' game.

From what I've seen 'canon lawyers' don't get annoying over that stuff, nor does it impact playability the same way the little stuff seems to. The big stuff is usually in the primary source books. The little stuff is usually in obscure and not readily available books for older editions. From my game, the Volo's Guides and the Ecologies sets were the primary offenders.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jun 30, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> And that's cool - as long as you're not DMing fans of the setting who want a DM with more knowledge of the setting.
> 
> But part of the appeal of the Realms to some people (not you apparently) is the fact that it *is* so detailed, and in their imagination, they've practically lived there.  It's likely to be less fun for them if you don't know the setting as imtimately.
> 
> Of course, if the players are willing you can always compromise.  If all you are familiar with is the campaign setting book only, then simply let them know that if something is not in the campaign setting book, then it's just a rumor.  (Maybe that secret door they think they know about is actually a trap to lure suckers [a.k.a. adventurers] to their doom - probably set up by the local thieves guild.)




The problem with this is that FR got too heavy by pandering to this base who wanted more detail heaped upon more detail, which raised the bar for entry into FR beyond what a new/casual player could stand. This puts the owners of FR in the lose-lose situation of continuing to pander to the base and turn away new customers or nuke the setting to open it up to new players and cheese off all the stalwarts.

From what I hear, the writers were campaigning for a reset to ease their burdens, and that settled it, if it wasn't settled already.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 30, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Oh, totally agree.  And that's how I play.
> 
> But, looking at this thread and the thread about Appologies to Wizards (or something to that effect), a lot of people are pretty disappointed if you start straying from canon.  The argument goes, "what's the point of playing in this published setting if you're going to chuck out elements?  I want to play in Forgotten Realms, not 'Hussar's Realms Lite'".
> 
> Not that I particuarly agree with that point of view obviously, but, it is an issue.




see the problem is one of scale...

I never saw aPC get upset that 1 little thing was diffrent, but I have seen things add up. OK in this game the druid grove is just a forrest full of orcs and gnolls they roll with...then they roll withthe fact that the secret harper base isn't where there harper PC expected...then they encounter Blackstaff who is courting a young woman and EXPLODE...how dare I not know he is involved with one of the 7 sisters...


I have read 2 realms novels so far...and only finished one of them (Swordmage)...so I don't know how NPCs act in the books, or why X happened...so I do my own thing. In eberon it never blew up in my face, in Darksun it went fine...in planescape I had 1 moment of problem in 2e with a disagreement about the lady of pain, so why does it happen with the realms???


also as far as my play style goes...att low level NPCs are Ok, but by level 9+ I want the PCs to be more important then 90+% of the NPCs, and by level 12-15 I want them to be the big movers and shakers of the world...


----------



## Nymrohd (Jun 30, 2009)

That part is the biggest issue AFAIK. Sure the argument that because El and the sisters exist they should do everything is false; they are extremely busy keeping this and that plot down. But on a power level within lore, the players really should never get a chance to shine. The vast majority ofl the ultra powerful NPCs of the realms are hundreds if not thousands of years old, have more levels than any two party members, almost all are wizards with their own unique spells (most of which are completely unbalanced), have been pulling strings and running secret and open organizarions since before even the elven pcs were born  . . . need I say more? And many of them are active adventurers or plotters, not stay at home leaders. They even gave us a tiny corner of the Realms (the border kingdoms) so that PCs can have a hope of establishing themselves. The thing is if you play by canon, it is not possible within the logical purview of a D&D campaign to ever be a truly important figure in the Realms.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 30, 2009)

Nymrohd said:


> The thing is if you play by canon, it is not possible within the logical purview of a D&D campaign to ever be a truly important figure in the Realms.




QFT...

However to be devils advacate here...in theory a VERY epic game, say 28+ level PCs could become major movers and shakers up there with Elminster...my problem is I want my PCs to have that spot light at say 12-15th level (legendary levels by 2e)


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jun 30, 2009)

To become important in the scope of the 3E Realms, you had to play beyond the sweet spot of the game into the levels that the game did poorly, and even into epic levels that were even worse.


----------



## ggroy (Jun 30, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> To become important in the scope of the 3E Realms, you had to play beyond the sweet spot of the game into the levels that the game did poorly, and even into epic levels that were even worse.




In principle one can play 4E D&D, while using the Forgotten Realms fluff + canon from 3E/3.5E and 2E.

One of my FR "canon lawyer" friends is doing exactly that.  He really hated what WotC did to the 4E version of Forgotten Realms, and hence is using all the older FR splatbooks from 3E/3.5E and even some earlier ones from 2E AD&D for his own "canon strict" FR game using 4E rules.


----------



## Primal (Jun 30, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> Here's a quote(1) from Ed Greenwood saying that it does.
> 
> 
> 
> (1)The Forgotten Times: Interview: Ed Greenwood




And have you read the Elminster novels? All of them?

Are you aware that quite a lot of Ed's texts have been heavily edited, modified and even rewritten in parts? 'Spellfire' is the prime example of this, but he's said a lot has been edited or modified down the years. 

Me? I love details and tidbits, and my players do so too -- for us they provide fun, and I feel all the "extra" work is worth it. Besides, that attention to detail and a thousand tales is what originally "hooked" me to FR -- when 4E FR got rid of it, I don't feel the same "spirit" is there anymore.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 30, 2009)

ggroy said:


> In principle one can play 4E D&D, while using the Forgotten Realms fluff + canon from 3E/3.5E and 2E.
> 
> One of my FR "canon lawyer" friends is doing exactly that.  He really hated what WotC did to the 4E version of Forgotten Realms, and hence is using all the older FR splatbooks from 3E/3.5E and even some earlier ones from 2E AD&D for his own "canon strict" FR game using 4E rules.





Ironically, if he's ignoring the FR 4e setting changes, he's not playing to canon at all (unless he's playing in the setting pre-spell plague, rather than pretending it doesn't happen).


----------



## ggroy (Jun 30, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> Ironically, if he's ignoring the FR 4e setting changes, he's not playing to canon at all (unless he's playing in the setting pre-spell plague, rather than pretending it doesn't happen).




That's true and ironic.  

In my friend's case, 4E Forgotten Realms doesn't exist.  His "canon lawyering" only goes up to the last few novels and splatbooks released in the 3.5E era.  As far as he is concerned, his "Forgotten Realms" is more or less a complete static entity now.  That is, unless WotC starts writing prequel novels in Forgotten Realms.


----------



## Nymrohd (Jun 30, 2009)

Actually becoming a power player in the realms is not just impossible because those echelons are populated by wizards at least in their mid to high twenties. It is because the intricate conspiracies and organizations that exist are ancient and it would be impossible for players to navigate those plots without bogging the game down to politics based more on lore and knowledge than power. To have true power would mean arranging truces and alliances with dozens of powergroups and individual powerbrokers. FR is too complicated at a political level. It is probably the way it should be in a world filled with nigh-immortal or undead archmages and a very large and active pantheon. But in its canon form it simply does not allow for the base concepts of epic tier gameplay as defined by 4E.


----------



## ggroy (Jun 30, 2009)

Nymrohd said:


> Actually becoming a power player in the realms is not just impossible because those echelons are populated by wizards at least in their mid to high twenties. It is because the intricate conspiracies and organizations that exist are ancient and it would be impossible for players to navigate those plots without bogging the game down to politics based more on lore and knowledge than power. To have true power would mean arranging truces and alliances with dozens of powergroups and individual powerbrokers. FR is too complicated at a political level. It is probably the way it should be in a world filled with nigh-immortal or undead archmages and a very large and active pantheon. But in its canon form it simply does not allow for the base concepts of epic tier gameplay as defined by 4E.




Good point.  Though I have no idea what my FR "canon lawyer" friend is doing to address this issue.  Most likely he will just move this sort of stuff up to a "post-epic" level, such as over level 40 or 50.


----------



## Uzzy (Jun 30, 2009)

People seem to be making the assumption that the only way to hold power in Faerún is by personal might, be it at arms, magic or otherwise. This is blatantly false. You can be a mover and shaker in the Realms from the start, if you want and your DM wants that sort of game. I'd suggest the brilliant book Power of Faerún, written by Ed Greenwood and Ed Boyd, if you want a whole books worth of ideas on how to play the political game, and set about bringing your PC's to power. You won't become ruler of Cormyr by teleporting into the throne room and slaying Alusair Obarskyr. Got to play the political game, finding allies etc. That seems far more interesting to me.

That said, if you wanted a game where you could come to power through personal might, just set the game in the Border Kingdoms. They are described in Power of Faerún as "The most favoured destination for adventurers who want to proudly and boldly conquer a realm or establish their own kingdom... Few folk go there except those who want to carve out a place for themselves with a sword." Sounds fun to me!


----------



## Nymrohd (Jun 30, 2009)

Not really. It is not fun to be the king of some piss poor track of land in the middle of nowhere. The border kingdoms are a bandaid.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jun 30, 2009)

I'm reading the Twilight War by Paul S. Kepm. I'm onto book II, Shadowstorm. It's a story about Sembia, Shadovar, Shades of different sorts and other worldly entities.

I never read one of the characters wondering, "Why isn't X taking care of this." From the point of view of the character, they are the stars of the book. If asked a question about, "Hey Cale, why don't we just get El and the 7 to handle this. This isn't thieves work." to which Cale would reply, "Perhaps not but IT'S MY STORY."

A GM who is unwilling to make the Realms his is doing his players a disservice. Every edition of the game notes that the GM should make changes as his campaign needs. No one from the WoTC police is going to come to your house and show you how to play.

Like some others mentioned here, I'm using the pre 4e setting in the year 137X (and I pick X because I know it's after the Rage of Dragons but haven't decided where I'll actually start it.)

The player's don't care. They're too busy enjoying the game. They've travelled to Ardeep, the High Forest, Waterdeep, Silverymoon, Luskan, and the great desert of Anauroch. They're too busy playing and having fun as opposed to worrying about how its supposed to be.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 30, 2009)

ggroy said:


> Good point.  Though I have no idea what my FR "canon lawyer" friend is doing to address this issue.  Most likely he will just move this sort of stuff up to a "post-epic" level, such as over level 40 or 50.




Since he's using 4e, a very different game system than older D&D, he could just stat the Big Good Nice Guys/Gals like Elminster as, say, Paragon Tier Solos with a high Ritual Caster level.    That way if the PCs reach Epic level they could be more powerful than the NPCs...


----------



## Nymrohd (Jun 30, 2009)

Cale is a chosen of a deity as well as a shade?


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jun 30, 2009)

Nymrohd said:


> Cale is a chosen of a deity as well as a shade?




Not quite the thread for this but yes; Mask.

It's an interesting take on Mask in Shadowbreed.


----------



## Nymrohd (Jun 30, 2009)

No I meant is as Cale is a powerful Epic character who does not need someone to upstage him, he upstages others.

Note: Erevis Cale is not a Mary Sue or other type of badly written super character. I personally consider him one of the best written characters in the realms (and Kemp one of the few FR novel writers who can actually, you know, write!).


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jun 30, 2009)

Nymrohd said:


> No I meant is as Cale is a powerful Epic character who does not need someone to upstage him, he upstages others.
> 
> Note: Erevis Cale is not a Mary Sue or other type of badly written super character. I personally consider him one of the best written characters in the realms (and Kemp one of the few FR novel writers who can actually, you know, write!).




And yet in every other series, like the Year of Rogue Draogns... E and the Seven Sisters are not stepping in and going, "Hey, we got this. Relax."

Cale was one example. It'd be easy to pull dozens of others with the numerous books behind the series.

Hell, one of the things nice about Cale as an example, is that he's "First of Five", showcasing that the gods often have multiple favorites. Even if there are super NPCs and the players want to have similiar roles, there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to.

The second the players make characters, the cannon of the setting is broken.


----------



## Nymrohd (Jun 30, 2009)

Well they are novels. Mind you the Rage of Dragons incident made absolutely no sense up until Dragons of Faerun explained it as Tiamat and Xymor moving in the realms. Why on toril did none of the archmages notice that the doomsday device was triggered? Surely there could be no bigger plot at that moment on Faerun than what Sammaster was doing it.

Badly written RSEs are alas another bane of the Realms.


----------



## Uzzy (Jun 30, 2009)

Nymrohd said:


> Not really. It is not fun to be the king of some piss poor track of land in the middle of nowhere. The border kingdoms are a bandaid.




Well, I don't find raising an army and conquering an area boring myself. If you wanted to try to take over a place like Cormyr though, you best have one heck of an army. And maybe Sembia working with you. It's doable, just a lot harder.



JoeGKushner said:


> I'm reading the Twilight War by Paul S. Kepm. I'm onto book II, Shadowstorm. It's a story about Sembia, Shadovar, Shades of different sorts and other worldly entities.
> 
> I never read one of the characters wondering, "Why isn't X taking care of this." From the point of view of the character, they are the stars of the book. If asked a question about, "Hey Cale, why don't we just get El and the 7 to handle this. This isn't thieves work." to which Cale would reply, "Perhaps not but IT'S MY STORY."
> 
> ...




I think I love you. Thank you for bringing up the fact that every edition does have notes that the GM should firstly, change the game to his needs, and secondly, that they should make the PC's the stars. The 3rd Edition FRCS even has an in universe explanation, from Elminster himself, as to why they don't meddle in everything (and just to counter the inevitable response, his explanation doesn't contain 'I'm busy doing more interesting things')


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jun 30, 2009)

Nymrohd said:


> Well they are novels. Mind you the Rage of Dragons incident made absolutely no sense up until Dragons of Faerun explained it as Tiamat and Xymor moving in the realms. Why on toril did none of the archmages notice that the doomsday device was triggered? Surely there could be no bigger plot at that moment on Faerun than what Sammaster was doing it.
> 
> Badly written RSEs are alas another bane of the Realms.




But from the point of view of the characters, it doesn't need to make sense.

And as far as 'Sammaster' being the big, the great thing is, the Forgotten Relams IS big enough that other things could have been going on. After all, in the Cale triology, the Sojournor was doing his thing with the ole Ring of Fire. In the Archwizards Return, El has a hand in there I believe? In Thay, things are always going on.

The Realms are too big to sit back and go, "Yeah, these guys will take care of it."

Not that the players should ever be thinking that in the first place. If players are thinking that, it's because a bad GM trained them to think that.


----------



## DaveMage (Jun 30, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> The problem with this is that FR got too heavy by pandering to this base who wanted more detail heaped upon more detail, which raised the bar for entry into FR beyond what a new/casual player could stand. This puts the owners of FR in the lose-lose situation of continuing to pander to the base and turn away new customers or nuke the setting to open it up to new players and cheese off all the stalwarts.
> 
> From what I hear, the writers were campaigning for a reset to ease their burdens, and that settled it, if it wasn't settled already.




Frankly, though, that's not the consumer's problem - that's the owner's problem.  And if it's gotten too big, then sunset the setting and start something new.  Leave it alone for those that enjoy it.  Alternatively, leave it alone for a few years, and then return to it.  

The problem is, IMO, TSR and WotC overmilked the FR cash cow.  So, they got a new cow and put the FR name on it.  No now there are those that like the new cow, and those that don't.  Split fan base.


----------



## Brother Richard (Jul 1, 2009)

*My Thoughts*

You know, i would probably consider myself fairly knowledgeable in FR lore.  Until the books approached 4e (as in like a little before lat year), i had read nearly every FR book, including those that were out of print by the time I could really read well.  However, when I play in FR games, I make sure I only 'know' what my character knows.  Also, I have been confused a few times and made false comments, that were then corrected by the DM, but it was not that bad.  My DM has read almost as many books as i have, until he sort of stopped.  So when I enter the Realms with my character, I am approaching it as the realms of what ever date the last book my DM has read.  He is also my brother, so i know this really well.  Also, the players I play with know the Realms nearly as well as i do anyhow, so its not that much of an issue.  The biggest problem is when I played an Inquisitor of Azuth from Halruaa, and my DM wasn't using those books by Elaine Cunningham about Matteo and Tzigone even though he dis read them.  Many of my facts were off until i realized my mistake, but one of the reasons I love FR is because of its rich history.  This means that I play Halruaa before those books I don't care, I still really like it.  even if I had to play FR several hundred years in the past to null novels, i would still love it because i still have some idea of what it was like, but FR becomes a more generic setting like Greyhawk with only some locations truly fleshed out and others only mentioned in passing.

So basically what I am trying to say is that the large amount of info being centralized in one individual should not really be a problem unless that individual does not handle it well.  The DM can easily just say: before those novels, if there is any issue, unless the DM is taking some late novels and didn't really read most of the others, which in my opinion is not a good idea in general; however, it could still work if nobody really knows the setting well.  Using 1/2 of the canon doesn't make sense and as an avid FR fan, I would not be happy.  I would probably even rather the DM just say: i changed some random FR stuff, its somewhat different, then i'm gonna try to use half of the lore, which makes no sense and causes problems because of a possible ripple effect not seen by the DM.  For example, the Zentarim are becoming mroe mercantile and less pure evil, and if this was ignored; some of what is going on in the Dales or whatever they are called wouldn't really happen ebcause of constant pressure from the Zentarim.

(I apoligise for incorrect names.  I am really bad at remembering the names of both places and people)

I don't know, thats just how i feel.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 1, 2009)

Primal said:


> And have you read the Elminster novels? All of them?



None of them.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 1, 2009)

Brother Richard said:


> So basically what I am trying to say is that the large amount of info being centralized in one individual should not really be a problem unless that individual does not handle it well.  The DM can easily just say: before those novels, if there is any issue, unless the DM is taking some late novels and didn't really read most of the others, which in my opinion is not a good idea in general; however, it could still work if nobody really knows the setting well.




what if the GM read those old pocket novels, about half way, then about half of spellfire, and has only 1 or 2 suplments other then the main book???





> Using 1/2 of the canon doesn't make sense and as an avid FR fan, I would not be happy.  I would probably even rather the DM just say: i changed some random FR stuff, its somewhat different, then i'm gonna try to use half of the lore, which makes no sense and causes problems because of a possible ripple effect not seen by the DM.




yea notice the problem...if I use the base timeline...and the main book, and magic of fairun, and one setting book...I don't even know half the stuff I am being acused of changeing...



> For example, the Zentarim are becoming mroe mercantile and less pure evil, and if this was ignored; some of what is going on in the Dales or whatever they are called wouldn't really happen ebcause of constant pressure from the Zentarim.




how am I as a DM to know that"


> I don't know, thats just how i feel.




you are not alone...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 1, 2009)

Personally, "Canon Lawyers" of any kind trying to use anything not in the game books generally don't do well in my campaigns.  (_Conan_ Lawyers are a different matter.)

If the RPG is based on some kind of IP- a novel, a movie, a TV show or the like- I'll set parameters that I will use as canon for the game.  Usually, it will include the "classic" sources that inspired the game...and not much else, if anything.

For instance, were I running a Star Wars game, I'd use the original 3 movies and ignore the books, cartoons, holiday specials, and of course, the 3 most recent movies.

OTOH, if the RPG existed before derivative IP (like the FR setting), _anything_ from those derivatives is out unless I specifically rule it in.  Now, I'm willing to listen to players' justifications for ruling something in from those sources, but it better be dang good stuff.  IOW, the default is "Out," but a persuasive argument can change that.


----------



## S'mon (Jul 1, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> OTOH, if the RPG existed before derivative IP (like the FR setting), _anything_ from those derivatives is out unless I specifically rule it in.  Now, I'm willing to listen to players' justifications for ruling something in from those sources, but it better be dang good stuff.  IOW, the default is "Out," but a persuasive argument can change that.




For me, that's the best approach. As far as the FR goes, I think there are lots of nifty bits in the setting, going just by the 1e Grey Box (later stuff I've seen has not impressed me, though I hear the 3e version was good), but personally I've always found it too flawed overall to run a successful campaign, so I've stuck to swiping bits & pieces for my homebrews.  I do wonder now though with 4e whether it might be possible to run a "Grey Box 4e" game, because that would make it much easier to eg ignore published character stats & capabilities.  The image of Elminster teleporting into the dungeon to rescue the PCs may still be hard to overcome, but maybe beginning a campaign with "Elminster is dead!" could do it.


----------



## Primal (Jul 1, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> None of them.




Ah, yet you heavily criticize them on basis of... what? Internet reviews? Opinions of other posters/friends? Your own biased opinions that Elminster sucks? I honestly think you should *read* them before stating negative things about them without the usual "In my opinion (and note that I haven't read any of these books)" type of disclaimer.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jul 1, 2009)

Primal said:


> Ah, yet you heavily criticize them on basis of... what? Internet reviews? Opinions of other posters/friends? Your own biased opinions that Elminster sucks? I honestly think you should *read* them before stating negative things about them without the usual "In my opinion (and note that I haven't read any of these books)" type of disclaimer.




I read quiite a few of the Elminster novels on recommendations from friends. I kept waiting for them to get better. They didn't. In terms of literary genius, I'd say they rank right up there (down there?) with Gord the Rogue. Of course, with the exception of a few short story collections, that's where I place pretty much all D&D fiction (i.e., a notch above marketable and right below _everything_ else).


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 1, 2009)

Primal said:


> Ah, yet you heavily criticize them on basis of... what?



I played in a few D&D games set in the FR back in the early 90s, read one of the novels (I think it was Curse of the Azure Bonds (which my friends wrongly told me was good)), played one of the computer games, read all the core campaign settings except the 4e one, quite a few scenarios and boxed sets such as Ruins of Undermountain, articles in Dragon magazine, interviews and message board posts by Ed Greenwood, wikipedia articles, some reviews of the novels and I've picked up a fair bit of info by reading ENWorld and other rpg boards. Really, it's hard to be any kind of geek and not know a fair bit about FR.

I think that's more than enough to have an informed opinion about the Realms. Note that even with my more limited knowledge I was able to find good counter evidence (Ed Greenwood on the Candlekeep forum) to Faraer's claim that Elminster and The Simbul are in a monogamous relationship, which I think shows one doesn't have to have read all the novels to make a useful contribution to a debate.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Jul 1, 2009)

Nymrohd said:


> The very definition of Mary Sue is a character that serves as the writer's avatar.



Pet peeve: _No, it's not._ Frequently, author avatars (let alone self-inserts) are Mary Sues, but it's not automatic at all. The best definition of a Mary Sue I've seen, and which I stick to, is that they're like black holes: their presence warps everything to be about _them_. Elminster, in the Elminster novels, does not qualify, because the story _is about him_ in the first place.



jdrakeh said:


> I read quite a few of the Elminster novels on recommendations from friends. I kept waiting for them to get better. They didn't. In terms of literary genius, I'd say they rank right up there (down there?) with Gord the Rogue. Of course, with the exception of a few short story collections, that's where I place pretty much all D&D fiction (i.e., a notch above marketable and right below _everything_ else).



Oh, yes. They're not good novels by any stretch of imagination, but neither are they "erotic fanfiction" as some people have claimed.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jul 1, 2009)

Lurks-no-More said:


> Oh, yes. They're not good novels by any stretch of imagination, but neither are they "erotic fanfiction" as some people have claimed.




But Ed did say that they _would_ have been erotic fiction if TSR hadn't restrained him (as Doug pointed out earlier, linking to direct author quotations at Candlekeep).  That said, I agree that they aren't erotic fiction as they stand _now_. And _thank goodness for that_.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Jul 1, 2009)

I find it ironic that so much criticism is done towards "gaming fiction", when the pulps were also criticized for similar features, and yet nowadays those pulps have a big resurgence amongst gamers.

It makes me wonder if the novels of Salvatore, Gygax, Greenwood, or Weiss/Hickman might be regarded with a lot more love 50-75 years from now.  It's a little harder now in the trademarks shared fiction world to see this, but who knows what "crap" will become tomorrow's classics.


----------



## S'mon (Jul 1, 2009)

Lurks-no-More said:


> Pet peeve: _No, it's not._ Frequently, author avatars (let alone self-inserts) are Mary Sues, but it's not automatic at all. The best definition of a Mary Sue I've seen, and which I stick to, is that they're like black holes: their presence warps everything to be about _them_. Elminster, in the Elminster novels, does not qualify, because the story _is about him_ in the first place.




On the one hand I agree that the reality-warping field is an important characteristic for the Mary Sue.  However I am not sure that disqualifies cases where the author creates a reality, puts a protagonist in it, and from the readers'-eye-view the reality seems warped to accommodate the protagonist.

For instance, if the protagonist is a homely-looking Gandalf clone wizard and without the use of magic, large numbers of powerful beautiful female wizards spontaneously fall in love with him and want to have sex with him. Or the hero has a thing about bondage-domination and every spirited, beautiful female he meets he sexually enslaves - only for them *all* to 'realise' that that's what they always wanted all along.  Cases of warping human nature in the cause of wish fulfilment, in a way that can make the reader's suspension  of disbelief impossible.

So my opinion is that an author-created reality does not exclude the possibility of a Mary Sue, if (a) that reality becomes bent and twisted to service the Mary Sueness of the protagonist, and (b) those changes violate all known norms of human conduct and probability to such an extent as to prevent S.O.D.


----------



## Primal (Jul 1, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> I played in a few D&D games set in the FR back in the early 90s, read one of the novels (I think it was Curse of the Azure Bonds (which my friends wrongly told me was good)), played one of the computer games, read all the core campaign settings except the 4e one, quite a few scenarios and boxed sets such as Ruins of Undermountain, articles in Dragon magazine, interviews and message board posts by Ed Greenwood, wikipedia articles, some reviews of the novels and I've picked up a fair bit of info by reading ENWorld and other rpg boards. Really, it's hard to be any kind of geek and not know a fair bit about FR.
> 
> I think that's more than enough to have an informed opinion about the Realms. Note that even with my more limited knowledge I was able to find good counter evidence (Ed Greenwood on the Candlekeep forum) to Faraer's claim that Elminster and The Simbul are in a monogamous relationship, which I think shows one doesn't have to have read all the novels to make a useful contribution to a debate.




I'm not saying that you wouldn't have an informed opinion about the *Realms*, but if you're claiming that Elminster is a 'Mary Sue' character, I'd advise you to read the novels by Ed Greenwood, because I think they paint a very different picture of El. Boxed Sets and adventures don't necessarily give you a good image of a NPC, especially if the author takes liberties with said NPCs. Computer games are not part of canon (and some of them were only marginally FR-related) and Wikipedia articles, online personal reviews or forum posts are not what I would call reliable sources. Of course you can participate in discussion (even Google up sources to back up your arguments) but it's generally considered to be polite that you don't try to pass on your own opinions (or those expressed in/by your sources) as facts, i.e. you remember to mention that you're citing a source or expressing your own opinion. Also, while I could google up stuff about Eberron, I wouldn't participate in discussion about 4E EPG, for example, because I just don't know enough about it (i.e. all my comments would be derived from online sources -- this is just an example, and obviously you know more about FR than I do about Eberron).

A lot of posters usually claim that Elmister and the other Chosen are Ed's "power trip" DMPCs who exist as omnipotent railroading plot devices, or to prevent player abuse and to strenghten the DM's authority. That is not an accurate description (I recommend reading the 'Silverfall' which depicts all the Chosen in a different light) in my books, and tells me that the poster just doesn't "get" the "spirit" of the Realms. 
Things in FR are rarely black-and-white; for example, Ed has subtly hinted for years that all the Chosen are slowly going mad, as Mystra's power gradually consumes their minds (IIRC Ed has noted that such power was never meant to be wielded by mortals).


----------



## Obryn (Jul 1, 2009)

I don't think I need to be familiar with every single source for an NPC to know whether or not I like them, or whether or not I think they have a bad effect on a setting.  He's not a real person, and I don't think I owe imaginary people a fair shake.

You wouldn't need to read everything released for the Post-Spellplague Realms to know you don't like it, would you?

I also see a little irony that canon-lawyering is being used to correct peoples' views of Elminster in a thread complaining about canon-lawyering.

-O


----------



## Primal (Jul 1, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> I read quiite a few of the Elminster novels on recommendations from friends. I kept waiting for them to get better. They didn't. In terms of literary genius, I'd say they rank right up there (down there?) with Gord the Rogue. Of course, with the exception of a few short story collections, that's where I place pretty much all D&D fiction (i.e., a notch above marketable and right below _everything_ else).




And you're fully entitled to your opinion; I'm not claiming that Elminster novels would be classics of fantasy literature (although some works by Greenwood, in my opinion, are) or suit everyone's tastes. I like them, you don't, and that's fine.


----------



## Primal (Jul 1, 2009)

Obryn said:


> I don't think I need to be familiar with every single source for an NPC to know whether or not I like them, or whether or not I think they have a bad effect on a setting.  He's not a real person, and I don't think I owe imaginary people a fair shake.
> 
> You wouldn't need to read everything released for the Post-Spellplague Realms to know you don't like it, would you?
> 
> ...




Well, it's one thing to say, for example, that I don't like 4E and that I think 4E sucks based solely on what I've read on the Internet, and another to say it after trying it, right? I don't expect everyone discussing FR to know who, say, Dunman Kiriag is, but if you're trashing the 'Eveningstar' module, I expect you to know him. There's a difference, and here it is important because not every source depicting Elminster was written by Ed Greenwood (or even moderately closely to how El appears in works written by him). 

As I said, I don't participate in Eberron threads and trash it because I only have second-hand, marginal knowledge about it -- fictional setting or not (and yes, I *do* think that would be a bit unfair, such as it would be unfair to trash 4E without bothering to read the books or even try it).


----------



## Obryn (Jul 1, 2009)

Primal said:


> There's a difference, and here it is important because not every source depicting Elminster was written by Ed Greenwood (or even moderately closely to how El appears in works written by him).



But does that honestly _matter_?

Elminster is a fictional character.  Ed Greenwood isn't the only one with the rights to write material including him.  If you want to make a distinction between Elminster stuff written by Ed Greenwood and that written by others, that's fine, but I don't think it's a necessary distinction for a casual FR gamer to make.  He's a fictional, corporately-owned entity, little different from Luke Skywalker, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and Mickey Mouse.  Even stuff not written by Ed Greenwood is (afaik) considered canonical for the setting.

I'd rather talk about the character himself, who is not only Mr. Greenwood's.  That keeps the potential for ad-hominems down to a minimum.

-O


----------



## Primal (Jul 2, 2009)

Obryn said:


> But does that honestly _matter_?
> 
> Elminster is a fictional character.  Ed Greenwood isn't the only one with the rights to write material including him.  If you want to make a distinction between Elminster stuff written by Ed Greenwood and that written by others, that's fine, but I don't think it's a necessary distinction for a casual FR gamer to make.  He's a fictional, corporately-owned entity, little different from Luke Skywalker, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and Mickey Mouse.  Even stuff not written by Ed Greenwood is (afaik) considered canonical for the setting.
> 
> ...




In my opinion it does -- during the TSR era, FR (and AD&D in general) suffered from poor quality control (mainly from poor editing and lack of attention to canon and continuity). I'm fairly sure that Eberron fans would feel the same if there had been a 'All around the Eberron' and stuff like it. Too many people got to write just about anything in the Realms on the basis that it was their flagship product, and it sold well. So I'd keep 'Elminster as written by Ed' separate from 'Elminster written by other people', especially when people so often make statements like "Elminster is just Greenwood's 'Mary Sue' character" (too often based on someone else's writings). And, to my knowledge, SW fanatics also argue whether novel X or graphic novel Y portrayed Luke Skywalker in an "illogical" way.

Yes, it's not just Ed's writings that are canon FR lore, but I'd say there's a huge difference between Elminster or Halaster written by Ed and someone else (just compare 'Escape from Undermountain' and 'Ruins of Adventure' as an example of the latter NPC).


----------



## Parlan (Jul 2, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> And that's cool - as long as you're not DMing fans of the setting who want a DM with more knowledge of the setting.
> 
> But part of the appeal of the Realms to some people (not you apparently) is the fact that it *is* so detailed, and in their imagination, they've practically lived there.  It's likely to be less fun for them if you don't know the setting as imtimately.
> 
> Of course, if the players are willing you can always compromise.  If all you are familiar with is the campaign setting book only, then simply let them know that if something is not in the campaign setting book, then it's just a rumor.  (Maybe that secret door they think they know about is actually a trap to lure suckers [a.k.a. adventurers] to their doom - probably set up by the local thieves guild.)




Fair enough.  I haven't met a player like this before so I have a hard time imagining someone with those motivations.  (Ironic given that I'm trying to run an imaginative game!)  

Different strokes for different folks and all that.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jul 2, 2009)

Parlan said:


> Fair enough.  I haven't met a player like this before so I have a hard time imagining someone with those motivations.  (Ironic given that I'm trying to run an imaginative game!)




I can only speak from experience, but MOST of the group who taught me D&D were Realms fanatics.  Amongst the group, they probably had every FR novel published.  When one person was done with a book, they'd pass it on to whoever hadn't read it yet.

I was the new guy in the group and just learning D&D, but FR sounded super cool the way our DM portrayed it.  I started reading novels that anyone would lend me as well.  I just read slower than most people and didn't finish them nearly as quickly as the others.

I always felt like I knew nothing.  I hadn't read the campaign guide or any game books about FR.  Just the novels that people would give me and whatever I learned from playing in the game.  But I know the people in my group would have constant discussions about stuff like "I wonder where Elminster is right about now.  Oh, right, it's X year, he's currently dealing with that thing from Y book.  Of course it's likely that the Simbul is in town visiting XYZ person because of that same book.  Maybe we should go visit her."

I was totally lost.  All I knew was that we were in some town where we were supposed to find some guy who stole a book from someone.

It just sounded like there was all this information to know, that I didn't.  It was interesting to play in as long as the DM knew about all that stuff, but it was intimidating.  I never even tried to run a FR game after that.  I tried reading through the 3rd Edition FRCG, but it was too daunting to finish as it is very large and rather boring to read.

But even with what I currently know about FR(having read about 15 novels, and most of the 3e FRCG), I'm sure I could still make a DM who had only read the 4e FRCG completely baffled with questions.  I already have.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Jul 2, 2009)

Primal said:


> A lot of posters usually claim that Elmister and the other Chosen are Ed's "power trip" DMPCs who exist as omnipotent railroading plot devices, or to prevent player abuse and to strenghten the DM's authority. That is not an accurate description (I recommend reading the 'Silverfall' which depicts all the Chosen in a different light) in my books, and tells me that the poster just doesn't "get" the "spirit" of the Realms.




The "if you don´t like it you don´t really understand the realms" defense. I´ve been waiting for that one. 

Dude. I´ve read the Elminster novels. And the FR books. And the introductory adventure where Elminster "accidentialy" heals injured PCs by using a wand of cure light wounds as a throwing stick. I can criticize. The problem with your argument is: to criticize canon-lawery elements of FR you have to be a canon lawyer yourself, but if you were a real canon lawyer, you would get it and not criticize FR and / or ED in that way, so read more  FR. 

Sorry, but that just doesnt work. And it won´t win people over to your side.


----------



## Primal (Jul 2, 2009)

Keefe the Thief said:


> The "if you don´t like it you don´t really understand the realms" defense. I´ve been waiting for that one.
> 
> Dude. I´ve read the Elminster novels. And the FR books. And the introductory adventure where Elminster "accidentialy" heals injured PCs by using a wand of cure light wounds as a throwing stick. I can criticize. The problem with your argument is: to criticize canon-lawery elements of FR you have to be a canon lawyer yourself, but if you were a real canon lawyer, you would get it and not criticize FR and / or ED in that way, so read more  FR.
> 
> Sorry, but that just doesnt work. And it won´t win people over to your side.




No, I haven't said you can't criticize the Realms or that negative comments imply you are not "getting" the Realms; I *did*, however, note that when someone is talking about specific modules/characters/regions, I expect that he's done the research... *especially* if he's making statements along the lines of "Designer/Author X sucks and NPC Y is just his DMPC" or that "Module Z sucks big time". For example, the adventure you're referring to is not (to my knowledge) written by Ed, and therefore that (horrible) scene with Elminster and the dog should not be attributed to his portrayal of El. It's canon, but then again, so is 'Once around the Realms' (which manages to misspell just about every other name in it, including Ao).

I consider myself to be a "canon lawyer", but I'm not above criticizing FR or changing the canon for my own campaigns (or accepting deviations from canon in other DMs' campaigns -- as long as there's more to it than just "Silverymoon exploded a year ago and now there's a new city called Greyhawk built on top of it"). I just hate it when people make statements on basis of prejudice and/or less than trustworthy internet sources.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 3, 2009)

Primal said:


> For example, the adventure you're referring to is not (to my knowledge) written by Ed, and therefore that (horrible) scene with Elminster and the dog should not be attributed to his portrayal of El.




Ok just so everyone is clear...I dislike the characters...not the writers..any of them..

Elminster has become (along with midnight/mystra and the chosen in general) a focal point for those of us that see a problem. Ironicly enough They are not the only problem...

        the fact that if you read all the novels and adventures and have an awsome memory (Like my roommate who can praticly quote exact words from the times of trouble) you know a metric but load about the realms...If you are asumeing even 1/10th of it is cannon in any given game you could easyly be in for the biggest rudeest awakneing...becuse Your DM might now less then 1% of all the realms lore...



> It's canon, but then again, so is 'Once around the Realms' (which manages to misspell just about every other name in it, including Ao).



good canon, bad canon...I just want less canon. I want one shared world that allows me to start at A and make my own stuff up without stepping on other peoples "known canon"...oh wait that would be 4e realms and LFR...



> I consider myself to be a "canon lawyer", but I'm not above criticizing FR or changing the canon for my own campaigns (or accepting deviations from canon in other DMs' campaigns -- as long as there's more to it than just "Silverymoon exploded a year ago and now there's a new city called Greyhawk built on top of it"). I just hate it when people make statements on basis of prejudice and/or less than trustworthy internet sources.




O lets ttake silverymoon. If I told you the Lord Mayor of silvery moon is a half elf named Rain, and he and his lover the shifter Fiona have ruled there for 6 months after displaceing X (X equaling who ever the canon says is there I realy don't know, but I know I herd it is a drizt setting city so I asume someone here does) what would you think?

Also what if there was a PC drow who walked into town, and I decided that I don't want to deal with prejudice right now, and I think drizt has been here (as above I do belive that is how I herd this I may be wrong) so they don't think twice of it. 

what would you say to me as a DM you were playing under...and what would you think (Lets be honnest even if you hated it you might not say anything so the second part is to make sure we are all ont he sam epage...)


----------



## Primal (Jul 3, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> Ok just so everyone is clear...I dislike the characters...not the writers..any of them..
> 
> Elminster has become (along with midnight/mystra and the chosen in general) a focal point for those of us that see a problem. Ironicly enough They are not the only problem...
> 
> the fact that if you read all the novels and adventures and have an awsome memory (Like my roommate who can praticly quote exact words from the times of trouble) you know a metric but load about the realms...If you are asumeing even 1/10th of it is cannon in any given game you could easyly be in for the biggest rudeest awakneing...becuse Your DM might now less then 1% of all the realms lore...




If you dislike most/all major FR NPCs (or deities), I don't know why you would want to run your games in the Realms. And I've yet to meet a FR DM who did not do any "homework", or used only marginally Realmslore in his FR campaigns.



> good canon, bad canon...I just want less canon. I want one shared world that allows me to start at A and make my own stuff up without stepping on other peoples "known canon"...oh wait that would be 4e realms and LFR...




Honestly, I might be wrong, but I think a shared setting might not be ideal for you, if you don't like researching the setting or using any canon lore. It's far more easier to homebrew, if you're practically going to use your own stuff anyway -- just "steal" ideas here and there and write the rest yourself.



> O lets ttake silverymoon. If I told you the Lord Mayor of silvery moon is a half elf named Rain, and he and his lover the shifter Fiona have ruled there for 6 months after displaceing X (X equaling who ever the canon says is there I realy don't know, but I know I herd it is a drizt setting city so I asume someone here does) what would you think?
> 
> Also what if there was a PC drow who walked into town, and I decided that I don't want to deal with prejudice right now, and I think drizt has been here (as above I do belive that is how I herd this I may be wrong) so they don't think twice of it.
> 
> what would you say to me as a DM you were playing under...and what would you think (Lets be honnest even if you hated it you might not say anything so the second part is to make sure we are all ont he sam epage...)




Well, I just replaced a canon ruler of a town in my own current FR campaign because I thought he was too "bland" (plus I didn't like his name). I just rewrote the poor guy's history a bit (changed his alignment, for a start) and then had him assassinated in the campaign backstory. Although my players are very "FR-savvy", they thought it was a logical switch.

And that brings me to your Silverymoon example... first of all, I *would* have a problem with names like 'Rain' (too "bland" in my books, and sounds like a nickname) and 'Fiona' (it's a RW name), just as any Eberron fan likely would if you used them as the 'King and Queen of the City of Sharn'. Whether it's 'George' or 'Fritz' or 'Ivana' or 'Bruce' or 'Fiona', I don't see these names belonging in a typical D&D setting, even less in FR than some others (Mystara is a different matter altogether). Secondly, if you used a logical, coherent reason why Lady Alustriel would be replaced by another ruler, I would accept it (a failed assassination attempt which yet manages to take her out of the picture, the creeping insanity caused by powers of the Chosen finally starting show, an important quest she had to undertake for Mystra, etcetera).

But if you expect to take a published setting and run your campaigns without reading *any* material, I suggest homebrewing, because that way nobody can comment about lack of adherence to setting's canon. And, frankly, as a player I feel that a DM who doesn't want to do any research/worldbuilding should not expect me to seriously immerse myself in my characters or to overall invest my time in his campaigns.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 3, 2009)

Primal said:


> If you dislike most/all major FR NPCs (or deities), I don't know why you would want to run your games in the Realms. And I've yet to meet a FR DM who did not do any "homework", or used only marginally Realmslore in his FR campaigns.
> 
> Honestly, I might be wrong, but I think a shared setting might not be ideal for you, if you don't like researching the setting or using any canon lore. It's far more easier to homebrew, if you're practically going to use your own stuff anyway -- just "steal" ideas here and there and write the rest yourself.



I don't see why, though.  I think there's a lot of appeal to minimalist settings, and likewise a lot of appeal to working with a setting only using minimal information.

For example, it's perfectly possible to use only the original grey box to run a Forgotten Realms game.  (And, in fact, I would love to do so.)  Ditto, Greyhawk.  I've done similar with the Diamond Throne setting, which is one of my favorites despite the fact that each region has maybe a paragraph or two of description, and vast tracts are left completely undetailed.

-O


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 3, 2009)

Primal said:


> If you dislike most/all major FR NPCs (or deities), I don't know why you would want to run your games in the Realms.




becuse I liked what I read...in my case 1 2e box set, the base 3e book,some suplments and some parts of a novel...



> And I've yet to meet a FR DM who did not do any "homework", or used only marginally Realmslore in his FR campaigns.



well hello you meet me now...I read the books I owned...


> Honestly, I might be wrong, but I think a shared setting might not be ideal for you, if you don't like researching the setting or using any canon lore.



funny, no one tells me that in any other setting...




> It's far more easier to homebrew, if you're practically going to use your own stuff anyway -- just "steal" ideas here and there and write the rest yourself.



In 2e I ran realms, darksun, birthright, ravenloft...and red steel Only one of those worlds was the base book not enough...guess witch...





> And that brings me to your Silverymoon example... first of all, I *would* have a problem with names like 'Rain' (too "bland" in my books, and sounds like a nickname) and 'Fiona' (it's a RW name),



actualy I took the names from two PCs who we ran in ebberon (and rain was the nick name, but the only name he used) 




> Secondly, if you used a logical, coherent reason why Lady Alustriel would be replaced by another ruler,



Ok first I think I was wrong about silvery moon, but I know nothing of this lady alustriel...



> I would accept it (a failed assassination attempt which yet manages to take her out of the picture, the creeping insanity caused by powers of the Chosen finally starting show, an important quest she had to undertake for Mystra, etcetera).




Wow I guess I was REALLY wrong she is a chosen..really how many rulers are chosen? Symbol, black staff, this chick...



> But if you expect to take a published setting and run your campaigns without reading *any* material,



Once again I read the campaing guide for 3e, some of the pocket novels, and part of spell Fire...I also have skimmed a few other suplments...how much "Research" must I do to be able to run this game?????




> I suggest homebrewing, because that way nobody can comment about lack of adherence to setting's canon. And, frankly, as a player I feel that a DM who doesn't want to do any research/worldbuilding should not expect me to seriously immerse myself in my characters or to overall invest my time in his campaigns.




wow the eltiest is strong in this arguement...I do spend time world building, notice you don't care WHY I changed it though...so let me now tell you some more...

The eberon game these two character were from was an evil game, and there main goal was to take over a big city, then settle down there and rule. I figured I could use them as a quick plot thread to introduce a plot about 'retuerning justice tot he city'...how ever like many canon lawyers you don't care becuse I made a change to your setting...




Obryn said:


> I don't see why, though.  I think there's a lot of appeal to minimalist settings, and likewise a lot of appeal to working with a setting only using minimal information.




can someone please tell me why the main book of the setting is not enough???



> For example, it's perfectly possible to use only the original grey box to run a Forgotten Realms game.  (And, in fact, I would love to do so.)  Ditto, Greyhawk.  I've done similar with the Diamond Throne setting, which is one of my favorites despite the fact that each region has maybe a paragraph or two of description, and vast tracts are left completely undetailed.





the problem is if you have a person who is heavyly invested in the setting like Primal seams to be, they don't like change...




I did finaly give up on published setting in 3.5...infact I said when 4e was announced I would not only not buy said setting, but nothing from them would be used. Then I herd about the 100 jump/fix to ferun, and the swordmage. I love BOTH setting relased so far, and wonder why the realms was allowed to become so boged down to beging with...


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 3, 2009)

Primal said:


> Secondly, if you used a logical, coherent reason why Lady Alustriel would be replaced by another ruler, I would accept it (a failed assassination attempt which yet manages to take her out of the picture,




I want to touch on this again...before I Knew she was a chosen (heck before I new it was a she) I assumed these two could take out the ruler easily...at 14th level she is a druid 14, he is a rogue X, Shadow dancer Y, Assasin Z (I would need to take some time to reporduce that character...and there way of being evil assasins was for him to sneak in, her to come in as a bird, wait for the person to be alone, she codzilla the person for 3 rounds, and if (Normaly a big if) the enemy was still up they got hit by his death attack....

now as in any other setting I assumes that would sucseed as an assasination attempt...but you assume any assassination would fail...why???


Edit: Ok, so I stole my roomates FR CG 3.5 to look up Lady Alustriel...and she is a CR28 chosen wizard/sorcer so if anything I just proved my point...by running a game with only the book I looked up the city and it said nothing about her being chosen or uber epic...it was only when my roommate told me to look her up int he index I found the stats (about 100 pages after the city)...

SO anyone here not see a problem? anyone?


----------



## SKyOdin (Jul 3, 2009)

Primal said:


> If you dislike most/all major FR NPCs (or deities), I don't know why you would want to run your games in the Realms. And I've yet to meet a FR DM who did not do any "homework", or used only marginally Realmslore in his FR campaigns.
> 
> Honestly, I might be wrong, but I think a shared setting might not be ideal for you, if you don't like researching the setting or using any canon lore. It's far more easier to homebrew, if you're practically going to use your own stuff anyway -- just "steal" ideas here and there and write the rest yourself.
> 
> ...




I felt like replying to the idea that someone shouldn't be running an established setting if they are going to change details of the setting. I will start by pointing out that I am not a Forgotten Realms fan, nor have I ever played in or run a FR campaign. However, I am a big fan of Eberron, and have followed it since its original release.

I for one think that _Eberron_ has more setting detail than I would care to research or care about if I was DMing a campaign in it, and that is even ignoring all of the novels. I haven't even purchased Secrets of Sarlona, the Xen'drick books, or Dragons of Eberron. Yet, I would feel perfectly comfortable DMing an Eberron campaign, and I would even claim that my campaign world was Eberron, and not some pseudo-Eberron. That is because a campaign setting like Eberron is much more defined by its themes than by any specific setting detail.

A campaign setting is built around a relatively limited number of central aspects and over-arching themes: its mood and tone, major countries, religions, cosmology, central conflicts, villains, and campaign level plot hooks. As such, smaller details can easily be changed without impacting the overall feel of the campaign setting. For example, I could get away with changing the name of the leader of House Deneith without affecting the rest of the setting pretty easily. House Deneith itself would continue to have its same influence on the rest of the setting. That is why I find latter splatbooks and novels to be unnecessary; they add more detail to the setting without really changing any of the central themes of the setting. While knowing that Khalashtar don't marry and that Khalashtar children join the clan of the parent they share a gender with is interesting and can be useful, it simply isn't important compared to the much more pertinent detail that the Khalashtar are fighting a generations-old conflict against the Quori.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jul 3, 2009)

Obryn said:


> For example, it's perfectly possible to use only the original grey box to run a Forgotten Realms game.




Yes, yes, it is. For me, FR _is_ that grey boxed set (and one or two of the FR X supplements). Anything past that is _completely_ optional. Anything that occurs past that initial point on the FR timeline hasn't happened yet (and may _never_ happen). The dozens of novels, hundreds of supplements, modules, and so forth all portray _possible_ futures or _rumoured_ pasts, not guaranteed certainties or established fact. They absolutely _aren't_ canon in any FR game I ever have run (or will run).


----------



## S'mon (Jul 3, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> Yes, yes, it is. For me, FR _is_ that grey boxed set (and one or two of the FR X supplements). Anything past that is _completely_ optional. Anything that occurs past that initial point on the FR timeline hasn't happened yet (and may _never_ happen). The dozens of novels, hundreds of supplements, modules, and so forth all portray _possible_ futures or _rumoured_ pasts, not guaranteed certainties or established fact. They absolutely _aren't_ canon in any FR game I ever have run (or will run).




This would certainly be my preferred approach to running FR, although fear of Primal-esque canon lawyers might deter me from actually running the game.
I find this "You shouldn't be running FR if you aren't going to stick to canon and read tons of novels & supplements" thing odd.   I'm interested in FR because I think the setting has lots of value, going by my 1e grey box, as well as elements I dislike.  There are plenty of settings without anything of value or interest for me - eg Kalamar.  You might think people would be glad that others are interested in their favourite setting, rather than saying that only canon lawyers should be using it.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 3, 2009)

Primal said:
			
		

> Honestly, I might be wrong, but I think a shared setting might not be ideal for you, if you don't like researching the setting or using any canon lore. It's far more easier to homebrew, if you're practically going to use your own stuff anyway -- just "steal" ideas here and there and write the rest yourself.




That's the problem with FR though.  I've run Scarred Lands with just the SL campaign book.  Heck, for a while, I ran a Scarred Lands campaign with just the Mithril City of the Golem book.    And it was fine.

I realized that FR was crushing under the weight of its own setting porn when they actually had FOUR articles written by Ed Greenwood on Rural architecture.  When they have the details down to the shape of windows  in the Realms, it's time to do some rebooting.


----------



## Hereticus (Jul 3, 2009)

FWIW, when I ran a Forgotten Realms game (started a 7th level), I clearly stated up front that the only canon was the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting book. Nothing else would be included (not by deliberate exclusion, but by DM ignorance of said canon). I also told the players that if they wanted a particular history or situation, that I would include it if possible. Since Drizzt was not in the FRCS, neither he nor his friends or enemies were part of the campaign setup. However later on some of the related characters were introduced by specific player request.

It worked, I did not get any "you got it wrong" comments.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jul 3, 2009)

Think of it as a point of conversation. In your Forgotten Realms, she's a 14th level druid.

In some official supplement, that's different.

Your version is what counts.

Every FR setting book reminds you to make it your own.



GMforPowergamers said:


> I want to touch on this again...before I Knew she was a chosen (heck before I new it was a she) I assumed these two could take out the ruler easily...at 14th level she is a druid 14, he is a rogue X, Shadow dancer Y, Assasin Z (I would need to take some time to reporduce that character...and there way of being evil assasins was for him to sneak in, her to come in as a bird, wait for the person to be alone, she codzilla the person for 3 rounds, and if (Normaly a big if) the enemy was still up they got hit by his death attack....
> 
> now as in any other setting I assumes that would sucseed as an assasination attempt...but you assume any assassination would fail...why???
> 
> ...


----------



## Brother Richard (Jul 3, 2009)

*Okay, I need to Coment on the Silverymoon Example*

Alright so you are saying that there is too much canon and bloat because of this instance because you did not realize that Alustriel was a Chosen.  Well, I mean, not knowing the Chosen is like the equivalent of not knowing the name of the Goddess of Magic.  Also, even if you don't know it, a campaign setting does not have to assume you are going around assassinating important rulers.  Thats just a bad idea in general (especially if you don't know anything about FR)

Edit:  I am trying to think of an Eberron example.  its sort of like killing the leader of the inspired or whatever they are called and then saying: "Well I didn't know that they were possessed by powerful Quori".  Some things jsut need to be understood, especially if you are trying to meddle in a setting.  Once again i want to mention that killing important characters is almost never a good idea, and also even if Alustriel was like a level 14 druid, the assassin would be killed.  FR is a high powered world the magic and wards around Alustriel's chamber would be ridiculuous and her elite guards would probably all be level 14+


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 3, 2009)

Brother Richard said:


> Alright so you are saying that there is too much canon and bloat because of this instance because you did not realize that Alustriel was a Chosen.  Well, I mean, not knowing the Chosen is like the equivalent of not knowing the name of the Goddess of Magic.



since I know where to find the list of Gods...where is the list of chosen? Heck howmany gods have chosen???




> Also, even if you don't know it, a campaign setting does not have to assume you are going around assassinating important rulers.



I am not going around doingit...someone named a city I sued it as an example expecting something important would be there...when I looked up said city in FRCG it didn't even hint how powerful this person was...



> Thats just a bad idea in general (especially if you don't know anything about FR)



 so again, howmuch is enough knowladge...how many books do I need to read???







> Edit:  I am trying to think of an Eberron example.  its sort of like killing the leader of the inspired or whatever they are called and then saying: "Well I didn't know that they were possessed by powerful Quori".



wow...since all inspired have quori, you suggest all city rulers are chosen???

really???


> Some things jsut need to be understood, especially if you are trying to meddle in a setting.



meddle?? I want to put my own NPC in...



> Once again i want to mention that killing important characters is almost never a good idea, and also even if Alustriel was like a level 14 druid, the assassin would be killed.




first the assasin was a 14th level druid...I assumed 2 14th level PC built character one being Codzilla would be enough to take out most rulers of cities...silly me, 



> FR is a high powered world the magic and wards around Alustriel's chamber would be ridiculuous and her elite guards would probably all be level 14+




where do I find this...it is not in the CG, or anything else I read...heck if I did fall on her stats (about 100 paages after the city is described) why would I think a CR28 chosen/caster need guards at all...





I proved my statement becuse when I made what the campiagn guide made sound like a small change (1 ruler in1 city, kinda like saying in my modern game the govoner of arazona is X) it caoused a fight...canon lawyers just showed why they HAD to change the realms...

I bet there are more DMs/Players that are my level of involvemnt in the realms...so WotC loses more and more money the more they cater to countiniy


----------



## JeffB (Jul 3, 2009)

Knowning Canon, and being a slave to it, are two very different things. Didn't anyone else just ignore all the big name FR NPCs and novel plots? 

I basically just dug into the boxed set(s) and books (Like The Savage Frontier)  and used all the baddies like The Zhentarim, Church of Cyric, Xvim/Bane, Myrkul, Bhaal, etc and ignored the specific NPCs (The Fzouls & Manshoons for example) and did the same for the Good aligned orgs- Elminster, the Chosen, Drizzt,  or Khelben never had any air time at all, yet the PCs could find themselves working with/for The Harpers, or the Church of (insert "good" deity" here) through low level "no name" NPCs and adventures  of my own creation. The charcaters were thrust into the world like anyone- having a POV that is based on where they grew up, and what they have heard about far away places and people could be VERY different in actuality. Harpers were not know by every farmer and villager in the relams, though they may know of a good natured  (pick a class)  who has proven helpful to the town in times of need.  Those types of groups are TOTALLY behind the scenes. while The Zhents may be well known, but the PCs  are not likely to know anything about them other than the obvious an ordinary  citizen under thier oppression would know (they control all trade, many are allied with a foul church and you'll be dead if you cross them or pry). While the Cleric of Sune may have some idea of what the other major faiths are about, they do not know the all the details of the Avatar Trilogy and Lord Ao, and the Chosen, and all the other "Godswar" stuff. 

Maybe I'm weird, but to me FR is an absolutely fantastic setting if you just keep the idea of "The PCs are the heroes of the world"  at the forefront of everything you do as the DM (this proves correct for ANY game or game world).  As a player, I'd have strangled a DM if they merely were following along with the TSR Novel Division and weaving my "pawn" into the cracks of the setting. Lame.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 3, 2009)

FR fans and the 2E and 3E eras catering to these fans to the expense of all else has given FR a bit of a bad name. 

I've seen FR fans time and again say that the accusations against FR aren't objectively true. The problem with this is that objective truth has nothing to do with things. The problem with FR isn't the truth, but the perception. People see FR as the home of Uber-NPCs, Mary-Sues, overzealous fanboys and being a setting you have to master a ridiculous amount of cannon to play in. 

The perception became so strong that the truth was irrelevant.

This isn't a court of law, but the court of public opinion. In the court of public opinion, the order of the day is guilty until proven innocent. FR needs to prove to the doubters that its worth going there.


----------



## Brother Richard (Jul 3, 2009)

*My Point*

In FR, many npcs are extremely high level.  An important thing to understand is that almost all rulers have power proportional to the politcal power of their nation/city/whatever.  If this is not the case, they have someone close to them who is extremely power (like Vanderghast in Cormyr)  Otherwise the extremely powerful evil people (just as powerful as those who are good) would kill that ruler instantly.  Did you actually read a about Silverymoon?  You didn't know that Alustriel is a Chosen, which would be in a book about it, and also, Silverymoon, while one city is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT POLITICALLY.  it is the center of the North.  Without it, there would be huge conceuquences.  I don't feel it is the settings fault if you didn't even read a full source about the main city you are using.  i feel like you would get a similar reaction in almost any campaign setting not homebrewed.  if you want to kill rulers left and right, make a new setting, or thoroughly research what would happen in a shared setting, and if you do, you can fine interesting and far reaching conceuquences for the pcs to try to diminish.

I am sorry if this seems antagonistic.  Maybe you feel that you shouldn't need to actually read much to be able to make big personalzied changes in a shared setting, but i strongly disagree in general, not just with FR.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 3, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> Once again I read the campaing guide for 3e, some of the pocket novels, and part of spell Fire...I also have skimmed a few other suplments...how much "Research" must I do to be able to run this game?????




Depends on your players.  This is true of many campaigns, even ones not involving the Forgotten Realms.  I know one guy, you put an orange carrot before its time in a historical game, made an issue over it. 



> can someone please tell me why the main book of the setting is not enough???




Because the amount of content in any one book is limited, and it can't cover everything.  Yet some people want more content.  If you don't, more power to you, but others may feel otherwise.  

Thinking of the examples you gave, Dark Sun, I'd appreciate having maps of some of the other cities to use, or the details found in the Ivory Triangle boxed set.  I think they add quite a bit to it.  Same with the non-Anuirean areas of Birthright.  Same may apply to Ravenloft or Red Steel, don't know.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 3, 2009)

To add to my previous post, FR has had an image problem. If the WotC and/or the FR community want the setting to grow they need to deal with that image problem. Saying that people have the wrong ideas or sticking your head in the sand do nothing to fix that.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 3, 2009)

Brother Richard said:


> Did you actually read a about Silverymoon?



The FRCG has about 1/4 of a page on the city, maybe 4 or 5 paragraphs...



> You didn't know that Alustriel is a Chosen, which would be in a book about it, and also, Silverymoon, while one city is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT POLITICALLY.  it is the center of the North.



It said the second part, not the first. Inorder to find the first I had to have a player tell me to look her up int he index, then I found her stats about 100 pages later...



> Without it, there would be huge conceuquences.



woa...I didn't destroy the city, I just made it a little darker and more black on the black/grey/white scale...




> I don't feel it is the settings fault if you didn't even read a full source about the main city you are using.




I READ THE MAIN BOOK... how many books do I need to read? I guess every singe source, or there is someplace I don't know...oh wait proveing my points...





> i feel like you would get a similar reaction in almost any campaign setting not homebrewed.



then why is it that out of everyone that has these problems, 7 out of 10 are in the realms??? Again, I have run many settings fromt he main book. Why do I need MORE for this one...





> if you want to kill rulers left and right, make a new setting, or thoroughly research what would happen in a shared setting, and if you do, you can fine interesting and far reaching conceuquences for the pcs to try to diminish.




I have the consquances...I am the DM I make them up. In this case it would be a small problem in the north, but a large problem in this one city. A problem for the PCs to solve...maybe overthrow these two new guys and replace them with another good aligned ruler. However I can see already no one wants to play in the setting...




> I am sorry if this seems antagonistic.  Maybe you feel that you shouldn't need to actually read much to be able to make big personalzied changes in a shared setting, but i strongly disagree in general, not just with FR.




It wasn't a change...it was i know nothing past the little bit in the main book. SO I created a plot. IN any other setting that would be fine...not in FR. Heaven forbid anything was changed...


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 3, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> To add to my previous post, FR has had an image problem. If the WotC and/or the FR community want the setting to grow they need to deal with that image problem. Saying that people have the wrong ideas or sticking your head in the sand do nothing to fix that.




Well, here's the thing, based on my experience, there's nothing WoTC can do about people with the kind of problem you're talking about.  It's just not worth trying to change people's opinions.  You may consider it to be sticking a head in the sand, but to me, it's not banging your head into a wall.

So I think WotC should do what's best for the existing customers, and not worry about pleasing the people who are already angry.  If they do the right thing, they'll catch any of the people who have an open-mind anyway, so it'll all be good.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 3, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Depends on your players.  This is true of many campaigns, even ones not involving the Forgotten Realms.  I know one guy, you put an orange carrot before its time in a historical game, made an issue over it.



 yea I know a guy (he and I hang at the same store but rearly if ever play in the same games) who is like that...





> Because the amount of content in any one book is limited, and it can't cover everything.  Yet some people want more content.  If you don't, more power to you, but others may feel otherwise.




but more and more people (even here look at eh last thread I responded to) are telling me I _HAVE_ to know more, and read more.



> Thinking of the examples you gave, Dark Sun, I'd appreciate having maps of some of the other cities to use, or the details found in the Ivory Triangle boxed set.  I think they add quite a bit to it.



But howmany PCs do you know that would be mad if I made my own map if I didn't own those sets...




> Same with the non-Anuirean areas of Birthright.  Same may apply to Ravenloft or Red Steel, don't know.



 First red steel is just a small section of another setting, and as for raven loft, as long as you stay to the core it should be fine with the main book


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 3, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> So I think WotC should do what's best for the existing customers, and not worry about pleasing the people who are already angry.  If they do the right thing, they'll catch any of the people who have an open-mind anyway, so it'll all be good.




see I disagree, by jumping the setting 100 years you get to have your cake and it it too...

see all that canon and history is there, but it doesn't effect the game. Noone cares what I say about silverymoon now...


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 3, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Well, here's the thing, based on my experience, there's nothing WoTC can do about people with the kind of problem you're talking about.  It's just not worth trying to change people's opinions.  You may consider it to be sticking a head in the sand, but to me, it's not banging your head into a wall.
> 
> So I think WotC should do what's best for the existing customers, and not worry about pleasing the people who are already angry.  If they do the right thing, they'll catch any of the people who have an open-mind anyway, so it'll all be good.




Catering to hardcore fans alone is a recipe for eventual extinction.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 3, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> but more and more people (even here look at eh last thread I responded to) are telling me I _HAVE_ to know more, and read more.




For what you've suggested, it might have helped a bit, yes, at least with some of the players, and with adapting your desired changes to the existing setting.  I honestly don't know, I've not read the 3e FRCS let alone the 4e one.  I don't even have the 2e books, and my 1e books are packed, so I can't check their content to see if they mention Alustriel, though I'm pretty sure that one of the add-on books covering the area did.



> But howmany PCs do you know that would be mad if I made my own map if I didn't own those sets...




PCs?   I dunno, but I do know some players who might be familiar with the parts of the setting, and make a character concept based on them, and then if you turned around and said that it wouldn't work, they might be a bit upset.  Including me.   The details would indeed matter, some changes may not bother me, such as not having all of Nibenay's templars act as his wives.



> First red steel is just a small section of another setting,




And if you changed the rest of Mystara without any knowledge of it, it might be a problem.   I wouldn't object if you put Red Steel into your own campaign world though.



> and as for raven loft, as long as you stay to the core it should be fine with the main book




Depends on the players, I would never assume you wouldn't have some problem.



GMforPowergamers said:


> see I disagree, by jumping the setting 100 years you get to have your cake and it it too...
> 
> see all that canon and history is there, but it doesn't effect the game. Noone cares what I say about silverymoon now...




That might have been the plan.



thecasualoblivion said:


> Catering to hardcore fans alone is a recipe for eventual extinction.




Excuse me, I guess I wasn't clear that I wasn't suggesting catering to the extreme, I was simply saying that trying to please the angry isn't that feasible an endeavor in my opinion.  If they're opponents already, they're either going to change their minds if you make a good product, or they won't no matter what you do, but making any particular effort to please them is as viable as banging your head against the wall.  All you'll get is a headache. 

They should worry about making a good product, and not waste time worrying about the harping critics who I've found won't be pleased whatever you do.

In other words, ignore that extreme.   Stick to the middle, possibly with a nod to the ones in your favor.  You'll still pick up anybody with an open mind, and won't lose your core with appeals to a fringe.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 3, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Excuse me, I guess I wasn't clear that I wasn't suggesting catering to the extreme, I was simply saying that trying to please the angry isn't that feasible an endeavor in my opinion.  If they're opponents already, they're either going to change their minds if you make a good product, or they won't no matter what you do, but making any particular effort to please them is as viable as banging your head against the wall.  All you'll get is a headache.
> 
> They should worry about making a good product, and not waste time worrying about the harping critics who I've found won't be pleased whatever you do.
> 
> In other words, ignore that extreme.   Stick to the middle, possibly with a nod to the ones in your favor.  You'll still pick up anybody with an open mind, and won't lose your core with appeals to a fringe.




FR prior to 4E tended to cater to the extreme, namely the hardcore FR fan. It garned a bad rep that led reasonable people to come to the conclusion: "I'd love to play FR, if it wasn't for all the crap". Its sin wasn't creating undeserved hate. Its sin was giving the impression of there being enough baggage to make it not worth the hassle of buying into the setting.


----------



## S'mon (Jul 3, 2009)

JeffB said:


> Knowning Canon, and being a slave to it, are two very different things. Didn't anyone else just ignore all the big name FR NPCs and novel plots?
> 
> I basically just dug into the boxed set(s) and books (Like The Savage Frontier)  and used all the baddies like The Zhentarim, Church of Cyric, Xvim/Bane, Myrkul, Bhaal, etc and ignored the specific NPCs (The Fzouls & Manshoons for example) and did the same for the Good aligned orgs- Elminster, the Chosen, Drizzt,  or Khelben never had any air time at all, yet the PCs could find themselves working with/for The Harpers, or the Church of (insert "good" deity" here) through low level "no name" NPCs and adventures  of my own creation. The charcaters were thrust into the world like anyone- having a POV that is based on where they grew up, and what they have heard about far away places and people could be VERY different in actuality. Harpers were not know by every farmer and villager in the relams, though they may know of a good natured  (pick a class)  who has proven helpful to the town in times of need.  Those types of groups are TOTALLY behind the scenes. while The Zhents may be well known, but the PCs  are not likely to know anything about them other than the obvious an ordinary  citizen under thier oppression would know (they control all trade, many are allied with a foul church and you'll be dead if you cross them or pry). While the Cleric of Sune may have some idea of what the other major faiths are about, they do not know the all the details of the Avatar Trilogy and Lord Ao, and the Chosen, and all the other "Godswar" stuff.
> 
> Maybe I'm weird, but to me FR is an absolutely fantastic setting if you just keep the idea of "The PCs are the heroes of the world"  at the forefront of everything you do as the DM (this proves correct for ANY game or game world).  As a player, I'd have strangled a DM if they merely were following along with the TSR Novel Division and weaving my "pawn" into the cracks of the setting. Lame.




Sounds good - again, these are the kind of ideas that get me wanting to run an FR game.


----------



## Primal (Jul 3, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> FR prior to 4E tended to cater to the extreme, namely the hardcore FR fan. It garned a bad rep that led reasonable people to come to the conclusion: "I'd love to play FR, if it wasn't for all the crap". Its sin wasn't creating undeserved hate. Its sin was giving the impression of there being enough baggage to make it not worth the hassle of buying into the setting.




Yet that "glut" of lore in novels, articles and accessories is what made FR so popular... therefore I don't think it catered just to the needs of a small gathering of diehard fans. Could it have been ever *more* successful by adopting a "lore light" approach? We can't say, just as we can't say if all those people who claim they would have loved to play in "less crappy" (to use the same expression as above) FR actually *would* have bought the products. I have a very strong gut feeling (based on anecdotal evidence and top seller lists), though, that a more "lore light" [4E] FR didn't go over as well as WoTC anticipated, and this may even have lead to the "3 books per setting" policy (IIRC before the books were out, Rich Baker mentioned other upcoming FR books that were supposed to be published after Spellgard). This is all my personal speculation, though.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 3, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> FR prior to 4E tended to cater to the extreme, namely the hardcore FR fan.




How so?   What examples would you give of this tendency?  A conclusion is one thing, but backing it up may help me understand your position better.  Especially since for reasons unrelated to any setting, I was out of the loop for about a decade.


----------



## Primal (Jul 3, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I want to touch on this again...before I Knew she was a chosen (heck before I new it was a she) I assumed these two could take out the ruler easily...at 14th level she is a druid 14, he is a rogue X, Shadow dancer Y, Assasin Z (I would need to take some time to reporduce that character...and there way of being evil assasins was for him to sneak in, her to come in as a bird, wait for the person to be alone, she codzilla the person for 3 rounds, and if (Normaly a big if) the enemy was still up they got hit by his death attack....
> 
> now as in any other setting I assumes that would sucseed as an assasination attempt...but you assume any assassination would fail...why???
> 
> ...




How do PCs take out powerful villains? With a solid strategy, and abilities/spells/allies/items that work on synergy, i.e. everything works like a well-oiled machine. If you want to see how the Mighty Chosen may be laid low, I recommend reading 'Silverfall'; it deals (among other themes) with a Realmswide conspiracy that also involves some low-level, crafty merchants among the "top tier" (plus a number of memorable scenes and er, how to say it... quite eccentric villains). One of those merchants is a particularly nasty as a villain; not because he's a high-level character, but because he's downright *nasty*, unscrupulous and has money to spend. And that's an important point, too -- those two 14th level NPCs would probably have enough resources that with a cunning plan and patience to spring their ambush on just the right moment they might succeed... just as a couple of 14th level villains might, with luck and the right resources, catch a 28th level PC by surprise.


----------



## underthumb (Jul 3, 2009)

I think what needed to happen was a great encyclopedia of the Realms, released in both hardbound and electronic editions. Unifying much of the lore would be a great help to GMs and having a single source would be amazing. As it is, if one wants to run a cannon-heavy game, one has to use the Forgotten Realms Candlekeep Index quite a bit to find all the references to a particular person or place. There are a great many details that reside within 1st and 2nd edition FR books. Prior to WotC removing their old PDFs, it was a lot easier to suggest purchasing these books for cheap and checking them when need be.

As for myself, I'm a Forgotten Realms GM and I believe strongly in using as much cannon as I can manage. I tend to agree with those that prefer to either go all-in with a pre-existing setting or you go all-in with their own setting. I believe that my players would like their PCs to reside in the Forgotten Realms as they understand it from source books and popular fiction, but your players may differ. They may not mind either way, and ultimately this is about the implied contract between a GM and his players, rather than the "correct" way to run an FR game.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 3, 2009)

underthumb said:


> As for myself, I'm a Forgotten Realms GM and I believe strongly in using as much cannon as I can manage.




Personally, I just don't like having that stuff.  Gond's gift was refused!


----------



## MercuryCrash (Jul 3, 2009)

*Just a bit of what I've done*

I have come across a couple of the cannon lawyers mentioned and really basically made a rumors table in my mind. Kind of the take it with a grain of salt saying. During 3.0 I had really begun to like Forgotten Realms and started collecting everything I could get my hands on to learn more about what the world was about from 2.0 and going into 3.5. I started a campaign that lasted for years. Some of my players had known more about FR than I did in certain areas still and as they brought forth information that they wanted to use I allowed what fit best and supported the over all story of the game. I used certain places in the realms (more than say main cities like Waterdeep) to keep the feeling of being in the realms. At times I would bring in names of main characters to give a bit of icing, in fact the characters met one or two during the game. When a part of the FR wasn't quite flushed out I would create around the basis given and sometimes it would get created as the characters were going through it. I enjoyed looking up as much information in the books and the internet to best put together a great scene/adventure. I stuck to the time line as best as I knew how unless there was 2nd edition info I wanted to put in for the fun of the game or went along best with my over all story. When big events happened in FR through novels or source books we did our best to adapt it into our FR world.
Though I have yet to attempt a campaign in 4e, I see the benefits of the reset and I'm a little torn with the history being even farther in the past.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jul 3, 2009)

I noticed that you skipped over my suggestion to tell the players that in your version she wasn't who she appeared to be in others.

Or ask the players why they'd know anything about the character through their characters in the first place. 

But the FRCS, if we're talking about the third edition book, has her stats on page 276. It also notes under the city description that the new ruler is like W 18.

Note, neither of those things matters as much as the GM making the Realms his, and making the players the heroes.




GMforPowergamers said:


> The FRCG has about 1/4 of a page on the city, maybe 4 or 5 paragraphs...
> 
> 
> It said the second part, not the first. Inorder to find the first I had to have a player tell me to look her up int he index, then I found her stats about 100 pages later...
> ...


----------



## Primal (Jul 3, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> well hello you meet me now...I read the books I owned...
> 
> funny, no one tells me that in any other setting...
> 
> In 2e I ran realms, darksun, birthright, ravenloft...and red steel Only one of those worlds was the base book not enough...guess witch...




No, you’re not one of the guys who don’t do their homework, if you’ve read the books you own. See below on what I wrote of reading the accessories you own. And, you can find a lot of FR-related information online, for example in FR Wiki.



> Ok first I think I was wrong about silvery moon, but I know nothing of this lady alustriel... Wow I guess I was REALLY wrong she is a chosen..really how many rulers are chosen? Symbol, black staff, this chick...



There has been quite a many Chosen of Mystra over the years (and other deities have Chosen as well, e.g. Fzoul Chembryl as the Chosen of Bane in FRCS)…including the Seven Sisters. 



> Once again I read the campaing guide for 3e, some of the pocket novels, and part of spell Fire...I also have skimmed a few other suplments...how much "Research" must I do to be able to run this game?????





Well, if you’re going to run a campaign in Cormyr, I’d probably expect you to read ‘Cormyr’-accessory and ‘Volo’s Guide to Cormyr’ as well. And if you’re running a Waterdeep campaign, I’d suggest reading at least the ‘City of Splendors’ boxed set. If you’re running your game in Silverymoon, ‘Volo’s guide to the North’ and ‘Savage Frontier’ would be good sources (and Lady Alustriel is detailed in 3E FRCS, by the way). If you don’t own the books, *then* it’s another matter; I don’t expect the DM to invest heavily (financially) in every campaign, i.e. order 1E/2E stuff via Amazon or eBay just to run it according to the canon. However, if you *do* own the books, I’d expect you to read the sources you have on Silverymoon or Cormyr or wherever you want to place your campaign in.



> wow the eltiest is strong in this arguement...I do spend time world building, notice you don't care WHY I changed it though...so let me now tell you some more...
> 
> The eberon game these two character were from was an evil game, and there main goal was to take over a big city, then settle down there and rule. I figured I could use them as a quick plot thread to introduce a plot about 'retuerning justice tot he city'...how ever like many canon lawyers you don't care becuse I made a change to your setting...





Um, what? I think I did explain that I don’t care about DM/campaign-specific changes, *if* they’re logical and/or explained in-game as well; if a DM would, however, implement the Eberron pantheon into his FR campaign and drop Greyhawk City into the middle of the Western Heartlands just because he can, I’d probably have a problem with that. Just as I’m sure Eberron fans would have a problem if in my campaign I’d replace Karrnath’s (sp?) ruler with a mid-level paladin NPC called Fritz van Uberwalder and swap Sharn with Suzail from FR (and unless I’m wrong, Karrnath’s ruler is a pretty high-level undead NPC who, as many Eberron fans would likely point out, could not be killed by a mid-level solo paladin).

Although I love details and using as much as lore as possible, I don’t adhere slavishly to canon, if I think changing or ignoring something benefits the campaign. As for my comment about worldbuilding… did you realize that it wasn’t a jab at you? It was simply a personal opinion that I don’t waste my time in campaigns in which the DM rewrites everything just because he feel reading the books [he owns] is too much work.


> can someone please tell me why the main book of the setting is not enough???




You can run a campaign with a single book, but using a detailed setting with experienced players might not be a good idea if the DM is new to the setting. And this applies to Dragonlance, Eberron, Dark Sun and any other setting you choose to name just as well as it does to FR. As I’ve said, I could just pick up ECS and run an Eberron campaign on basis of that… however, I’m fairly sure that many Eberron experts would point out that I shouldn’t run a campaign in Stormreach or adventures in Argonessen without proper sourcebooks and maps. I *could* say that it’s my Eberron campaign… but then again, so you could with FR, too. Also, many regions in FR haven't received much attention since the Grey Boxed Set anyway, so it would be way easier to set a campaign in one of these areas if you feel your players know more about the "popular" areas than you do.

And this also depends on the players, too... I've run games for people who were not into details or taking notes, and I remember a few times when such players told me to skip descriptions and details and get to rolling initiative. On the other hand, my own regular players favor social interaction, history, details and intrigue over combat, and everyone takes notes about everything.



> the problem is if you have a person who is heavyly invested in the setting like Primal seams to be, they don't like change...



 
Change for change’s sake and/or ignoring published material or replacing it with something else because you don’t like to read accessories you own is bad in my books. I'm okay with changes that are internally consistent and logical (i.e. there's a plausible reason, and it doesn't "break" any "rules" of the setting), especially if you're changing something because you feel it's going to benefit everyone.



> I did finaly give up on published setting in 3.5...infact I said when 4e was announced I would not only not buy said setting, but nothing from them would be used. Then I herd about the 100 jump/fix to ferun, and the swordmage. I love BOTH setting relased so far, and wonder why the realms was allowed to become so boged down to beging with...



 
Because for many fans that level of details was the lure and “meat” of the setting?


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 4, 2009)

A setting should not have expectations so strong that a DM could end up ridiculed or harrassed by his players for getting the setting "wrong".


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 4, 2009)

Primal said:


> No, you’re not one of the guys who don’t do their homework, if you’ve read the books you own. See below on what I wrote of reading the accessories you own. And, you can find a lot of FR-related information online, for example in FR Wiki.



I just don't own that many FR books...



> (and Lady Alustriel is detailed in 3E FRCS, by the way).



      about 100 pages after the city...no refrence to those stats...I only knew becuse one of my friends told me to look at the index...





> Um, what? I think I did explain that I don’t care about DM/campaign-specific changes, *if* they’re logical and/or explained in-game as well;



but it is illogical that these two bad guys killed her???




> if a DM would, however, implement the Eberron pantheon into his FR campaign and drop Greyhawk City into the middle of the Western Heartlands just because he can, I’d probably have a problem with that.



that is not what I did



> It was simply a personal opinion that I don’t waste my time in campaigns in which the DM rewrites everything just because he feel reading the books [he owns] is too much work.



what about one that just owns less books...



> You can run a campaign with a single book, but using a detailed setting with experienced players might not be a good idea if the DM is new to the setting. And this applies to Dragonlance, Eberron, Dark Sun and any other setting you choose to name just as well as it does to FR.



but the thing is most people don't run into these problems in any other setting...





thecasualoblivion said:


> A setting should not have expectations so strong that a DM could end up ridiculed or harrassed by his players for getting the setting "wrong".




QFT


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 4, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> A setting should not have expectations so strong that a DM could end up ridiculed or harrassed by his players for getting the setting "wrong".




Guess you won't be doing any historical games then.  But honestly, I think either your standards are too high, or you haven't met the players I have.  In my experience, players can be quite nit-picky, and unless your game has no connection to reality, something can always trip you up.  

Of course, I might just say that if your players are ridiculing or harassing you, then you have a problem that's not related to the setting.  It's related to the interaction between the DM and player, and should be addressed on that basis instead.  Especially since players can have concerns about their expectations that don't amount to ridicule or harassment.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 4, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> but the thing is most people don't run into these problems in any other setting...




How do you know what most people don't run into?


----------



## Charger28Alpha (Jul 4, 2009)

underthumb said:


> I think what needed to happen was a great encyclopedia of the Realms, released in both hardbound and electronic editions. Unifying much of the lore would be a great help to GMs and having a single source would be amazing. As it is, if one wants to run a cannon-heavy game, one has to use the Forgotten Realms Candlekeep Index quite a bit to find all the references to a particular person or place. There are a great many details that reside within 1st and 2nd edition FR books. Prior to WotC removing their old PDFs, it was a lot easier to suggest purchasing these books for cheap and checking them when need be.




Does this fit the bill?

The Forgotten Realms Wiki - Books, races, classes, and more

I am surprised no one has mentioned the above linked Wiki, it is an invaluable resource, if like GMforPowergamers you only have the Campaign Setting book.  It is the only reason I even thought about putting together a campaign in Faerûn.  Which I have done, it is sitting in files on my PC to take to Kuwait this winter.

I find that for fluff it is much better and easier then wading through dozens of books.   

As to "canon lawyers", not much can be done if you have one, that hinders rather than helps the plot, at your table.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 4, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> How do you know what most people don't run into?




Because we read. You read everywhere about FR's baggage. I've had my issues with FR, and I've read my issues echoed dozens or even hundreds of times. You almost never read this sort of thing about Eberron or any other setting. Other settings don't have this level of canon expectations combined with a SW/Trekkie level of fanism.

FR has no baggage to a hardcore fan. The setting for over a decade catered to hardcore fans. It got to the point where the canon became and end in itself and reading FR campaign books for canon started overshadowing actually playing games there. The same things that catered to the hardcore fan are the same things bystanders call "baggage" and "more hassle than the setting is worth".

The issue comes when you ask the question of whether Forgotten Realms is the flagship setting of D&D. Historically speaking, this is what Forgotten Realms is. Thanks to how the setting has been handled(FR for the FR fans), it hasn't served mainstream D&D well in this regard.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 4, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Because we read.  You read everywhere about FR's baggage. I've had my issues with FR, and I've read my issues echoed dozens or even hundreds of times. You almost never read this sort of thing about Eberron or any other setting.




Well, you're saying exactly what I thought you might say, which is that you're relying on assuming a meaning to what people don't say, which I've found to often be quite misleading, especially when you've got something as popular as the Forgotten Realms.  It actually tends to be quite deceptive, and may be giving you the illusion that others don't have these problems.

I suggest conducting more thorough research.


----------



## DaveMage (Jul 4, 2009)

Charger28Alpha said:


> Does this fit the bill?
> 
> The Forgotten Realms Wiki - Books, races, classes, and more
> 
> I am surprised no one has mentioned the above linked Wiki, it is an invaluable resource, if like GMforPowergamers you only have the Campaign Setting book.




Thanks for that link!


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 4, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Well, you're saying exactly what I thought you might say, which is that you're relying on assuming a meaning to what people don't say, which I've found to often be quite misleading, especially when you've got something as popular as the Forgotten Realms.  It actually tends to be quite deceptive, and may be giving you the illusion that others don't have these problems.
> 
> I suggest conducting more thorough research.




This sort of elitist attitude doesn't really help. Say that you have a problem or that there is a problem with Forgotten Realms and people tend to insinuate that the problem is with you, not the Realms. This is the sort of fan attitude that builds a wall keeping out new players.

People gripe about Eberron all the time. They gripe about not liking the flavor for the most part. Maybe I should have been specific in that the criticisms leveled against FR seem fairly unique to FR.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 4, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> People gripe about Eberron all the time. They gripe about not liking the flavor for the most part. Maybe I should have been specific in that the criticisms leveled against FR seem fairly unique to FR.




It may to you, but, my experience is that there is nothing unique about this particular criticism.

And as for attitudes go, well, I find it offensive whenever I see people  making an assumption based on the terms you have, whether it be a RPG subject, a computer one, or almost anything else you might name.  So it's not a Realms thing for me, I apply it to a wide variety.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 4, 2009)

Ok, lets put it this way:

FR's biggest issue is that it has an image problem. FR fans tend to be the trekkies of the D&D world, with all that entails. Its an exclusive club that tends to be off-putting to those not already inside. In addition, this image problem doesn't exist to FR fans themselves for the most part, and they don't really see or understand it. There are also entire libraries of canon which in popular perception the game "must" be true to, which can be daunting to the outsider. Unlike Star Trek where you can watch shows/movies and not have to deal with Trekkies, playing D&D is a group activity where playing in FR makes it more difficult to avoid FR fanism.

This level of canon expectations and fan furor doesn't really exist for other settings, other than possibly Vampire: the Masquerade during its heyday.


----------



## Primal (Jul 4, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> A setting should not have expectations so strong that a DM could end up ridiculed or harrassed by his players for getting the setting "wrong".




Well, some players are rules-lawyers and some players are setting-lawyers... that's the way it has been, and such behaviour is not restricted to RPGs only. I don't think Eberron hardcore fans are any different from FR "canon lawyers", and although there's a difference in amount of published material, Eberron isn't exactly "lore light" setting either... especially for a new DM.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 4, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> FR's biggest issue is that it has an image problem.




I don't think this image problem is a real issue.  It may be the biggest issue for you, but for me?  It doesn't even track.   Not even with the image you have of it.

If anything, the real issue I see is a conflict between people's expectations which is so widespread that I would suggest learning to deal with that conflict on its own.  You can run into it without expecting it, including with as I mentioned before, carrots.



> This level of canon expectations and fan furor doesn't really exist for other settings, other than possibly Vampire: the Masquerade during its heyday.




Again, me, I've run into people of all stripes with those kinds of expectations without anything to do with the Realms.    Maybe it's the experiences we've had which is coloring our different perceptions.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 4, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> I don't think this image problem is a real issue.  It may be the biggest issue for you, but for me?  It doesn't even track.   Not even with the image you have of it.




Are you an existing Forgotten Realms fan? Why would you have this issue if you are an existing fan? I could imagine this problem being difficult to see in others.



Bumbles said:


> If anything, the real issue I see is a conflict between people's expectations which is so widespread that I would suggest learning to deal with that conflict on its own.  You can run into it without expecting it, including with as I mentioned before, carrots.




So, you're saying that if people have an issue with FR, it is an issue with them and not with FR. I hear FR fans say this a lot. Its not really a welcoming attitude.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 4, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> If anything, the real issue I see is a conflict between people's expectations which is so widespread that I would suggest learning to deal with that conflict on its own.  You can run into it without expecting it, including with as I mentioned before, carrots.




I don't belive this for one moment. I never herd of this problem until long after I found it myself. I spent years thinking it was my group only that had it. Then and only then did I hear other people had the exact same problem...

now on the internet it is common to complain about it. So the defualt answer fans through around is "If you never herd of the problem you never would have seen it..."

the problem is I found the problem without any help...so did others.

If the problem is not real why do so many find it on there own??


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 4, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Are you an existing Forgotten Realms fan?




Define your term, then I can possibly answer it in some meaningful way.  

Otherwise I'll just say I've read some of the novels, but haven't bought a FR product since 1st edition, though I've read some of the books published since, and played games set in it.  And yes, I have run into situations where there have been conflicts regarding canon-issues.  But I don't believe it's a FR problem since I've run into so many of them outside the FR games I've played.  



> Why would you have this issue if you are an existing fan? I could imagine this problem being difficult to see in others.




Oh, I see the "problem" of people having a conflict regarding canon all the time.  I just don't see it as a FR problem in particular, as much as a player one that can hit any subject, anywhere.  Hence my suggestion of dealing with it on those terms, and not try to fix the Realms.  

Seriously, if you're being ridiculed or harassed by your players, find new players.  



> So, you're saying that if people have an issue with FR, it is an issue with them and not with FR. I hear FR fans say this a lot. Its not really a welcoming attitude.




That is not what I was saying.  Your understanding of my words is in error.  Since I've clarified it above, I'll refrain from doing it further, and just ask you to re-read what I've said.

And let's leave off the comments as to attitude, that sort of thing is going to create problems.   Thanks in advance.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 4, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I don't belive this for one moment.




Well, you can doubt my experiences, but I don't know how I can convince you of their reality.  I'm not about to invite you into my life.  

Maybe you could write some fan-fiction in another setting, or get involved in some historical re-enactment, or try gaming in some non-FR settings, but me, I don't know what I can do, as I see it as something you'd have to experience for yourself.



> I never herd of this problem until long after I found it myself. I spent years thinking it was my group only that had it. Then and only then did I hear other people had the exact same problem...




This realization would make me think "Hmm, maybe there are some non-FR subjects where this happens too" but then, I did run into this problem before I ran into it with the FR.   Might even have been before I ran into the Realms, I'm honestly not sure.


----------



## ggroy (Jul 4, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> This realization would make me think "Hmm, maybe there are some non-FR subjects where this happens too" but then, I did run into this problem before I ran into it with the FR.   Might even have been before I ran into the Realms, I'm honestly not sure.




I've run into the "canon lawyering" problem in other rpg games, such as Marvel Superheros, DC Heros, various Star Wars rpgs, etc ...

Typically they're properties which have a lot of previous stuff written for it, such as background splatbooks, novels, comic books, movies, television shows, etc ...


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 4, 2009)

Well, the more content you have, the more possibility you have of conflict seeping in.   Especially since content will come about as there are more fans, which increases the chance you'll run into somebody.  But there's people out there who will quibble if you do things wrong based on their reading of a single short story.

ETA:  OTOH, there are people who can read dozens of books for a setting, and not look for any particular nit-picking canon.  Me, I'm one of them.  Read lots of books, I rarely notice any inconsistencies unless they're particularly egregious.


----------



## underthumb (Jul 4, 2009)

Charger28Alpha said:


> Does this fit the bill?
> 
> The Forgotten Realms Wiki - Books, races, classes, and more




Unfortunately, no, it doesn't. I use the wiki on occasion, but most pages are very low in detail, meaning I usually have to go to the primary sources to get anything other than the most cursory outline.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Jul 4, 2009)

ggroy said:


> I've run into the "canon lawyering" problem in other rpg games, such as Marvel Superheros, DC Heros, various Star Wars rpgs, etc ...
> 
> Typically they're properties which have a lot of previous stuff written for it, such as background splatbooks, novels, comic books, movies, television shows, etc ...



You know, I think this is an interesting point to me, though probably for reasons you were not intending.

Canon lawyering is indeed quite common, but it is particularly common for things that have "lots of previous stuff", in other words they are adaptations of things that were not originally intended to be used as settings for many new original stories created by hundreds of different fans and DMs. For such settings, large quantities of canon are simply going to exist regardless of anyone's intentions, and are a necessary evil with regards to fan fiction and RPG campaigns.

However, D&D campaign settings are a different case. Ideally, and unlike the examples you listed, such settings are in fact designed with the idea that they will be used to create countless different and likely contradictory works of campaigns and fan fiction. Treating such a setting as like the DC universe, the Star Wars universe, or any other setting defined by a central ongoing story, may well be a mistake, because treating it in such a way may take away from the intended primary goal of that kind of setting: to be a resource for creating new campaigns in a fun and easy manner. In such a case, canon goes from being a necessary evil to simply being an evil.

To be perfectly honest, this is why I like Eberron and its approach to canon. No Eberron novel is canonical, no novel can change the setting, there is no ongoing story that progresses across editions, there are no central heroic characters, there are many concepts and secrets within the setting that are officially off-limits for the establishment of canonical descriptions or explanations (WotC will not create a canonical explanation for the cause of the Mourning, among other things), and many significant elements of the setting are left intentionally vague and self-contradictory (Kaius's motivations, the nature of the Lord of Blades, the goals of the Daughters of Sora Kell, etc). Eberron deliberately avoids the establishment of canon and leaves room for DMs to fill in the holes, which is something I consider to be a necessary step for making a setting that is flexible enough to let DMs to simultaneously use a setting as written and change things around or invent things to suit the needs of a campaign.

Of course, I should also admit that I really don't like many of the later 3E  splatbooks for Eberron simply because they diminish the flexibility of the setting that was established in the original ECS. In fact, I have already tangled with a couple Eberron canon lawyers who were a bit too stuck up on one interpretation of some bit of canon from a later splatbook that probably wasn't all that well thought out in the first place. Ugh...

To get back to my point, I guess I will say that Forgotten Realms may be connected to so many complaints about canon lawyering and such simply because it modeled itself on things like Star Wars continuity or the DC universe more than it should have, when a different approach works better for something that needs to be as open and flexible as a D&D campaign setting.


----------



## ggroy (Jul 4, 2009)

TwinBahamut said:


> I guess I will say that Forgotten Realms may be connected to so many complaints about canon lawyering and such simply because it modeled itself on things like Star Wars continuity or the DC universe more than it should have




Something like this could have happened unintentionally, due to things like poor editorial oversight and neglect.


----------



## S'mon (Jul 4, 2009)

TwinBahamut said:


> To get back to my point, I guess I will say that Forgotten Realms may be connected to so many complaints about canon lawyering and such simply because it modeled itself on things like Star Wars continuity or the DC universe more than it should have, when a different approach works better for something that needs to be as open and flexible as a D&D campaign setting.




I think that's right.  I think the reason is that TSR published it as a campaign setting, but then realised they were making more money from the FR novels than from the RPG materials.  So the needs of the novels (for continuity) outweighed the needs of the RPG product (as a playable setting).


----------



## Swordsage (Jul 4, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> A setting should not have expectations so strong that a DM could end up ridiculed or harrassed by his players for getting the setting "wrong".




That comment says more about the players than the DM. When FR campaigns "go bad" it's usually because of what the players bring to the table, not what the DM dishes up.

The Swordsage


----------



## Charger28Alpha (Jul 4, 2009)

underthumb said:


> Unfortunately, no, it doesn't. I use the wiki on occasion, but most pages are very low in detail, meaning I usually have to go to the primary sources to get anything other than the most cursory outline.




Then we are on opposite sides of the fence when it comes to Faerun.  You are looking for more depth of detail than I am.

The wiki provided me with tons of ideas and information.  I did reference books, namely the 3ed Campaign Setting book, plus the Vilhon Reach and Lands of Intrigue pdfs.  However, the wiki was my primary source.




Brother Richard said:


> .....if you want to kill rulers left and right, make a new setting, or thoroughly research what would happen in a shared setting, and if you do, you can fine interesting and far reaching conceuquences for the pcs to try to diminish.
> 
> I am sorry if this seems antagonistic. Maybe you feel that you shouldn't need to actually read much to be able to make big personalized changes in a shared setting, but i strongly disagree in general, not just with FR.




I am confused about Brother Richard's use of the term "shared setting".  Aside from those sitting at the table playing; who would be affected by the killing off of any powerful NPC?, what effect would it have on others if the consequences and ripple effect of the assassination did not jibe with anybody but the PCs expectations?

As a game setting who beyond those players in each group that play in FR "share" it?


----------



## Maggan (Jul 4, 2009)

Charger28Alpha said:


> I am confused about Brother Richard's use of the term "shared setting".  Aside from those sitting at the table playing; who would be affected by the killing off of any powerful NPC?, what effect would it have on others if the consequences and ripple effect of the assassination did not jibe with anybody but the PCs expectations?
> 
> As a game setting who beyond those players in each group that play in FR "share" it?




Maybe he's talking about the RPGA and Living Forgotten Realms? Other than that, I'm as non-plussed as you are. What goes on at my table isn't a part of any shared setting.

/M


----------



## jdrakeh (Jul 4, 2009)

S'mon said:


> This would certainly be my preferred approach to running FR, although fear of Primal-esque canon lawyers might deter me from actually running the game.




I feel you, but this is a situation that can fortunately be solved with very little hassle — I ask canon lawyers to take a hike.  



> I find this "You shouldn't be running FR if you aren't going to stick to canon and read tons of novels & supplements" thing odd.




I understand it, so it's not so much odd for me as it is extremely frustrating.



> You might think people would be glad that others are interested in their favourite setting, rather than saying that only canon lawyers should be using it.




Well, IME, canon lawyers don't really want to _play_ in their preferred setting so much as they want to show off their knowledge of it and flaunt that over other people. In my opinion, being a canon lawer is less about love for a given setting than it is about exerting control over others and making oneself the center of attention.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 4, 2009)

Brother Richard said:


> You didn't know that Alustriel is a Chosen, which would be in a book about it, and also, Silverymoon, while one city is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT POLITICALLY.  it is the center of the North.  Without it, there would be huge conceuquences.



I don't see anything about Chosen in my grey box.

Why should they exist in my Realms?



> I don't feel it is the settings fault if you didn't even read a full source about the main city you are using.  i feel like you would get a similar reaction in almost any campaign setting not homebrewed.  if you want to kill rulers left and right, make a new setting, or thoroughly research what would happen in a shared setting, and if you do, you can fine interesting and far reaching conceuquences for the pcs to try to diminish.



I'd extrapolate from the other nearby places in the Grey Box and ignore the other setting stuff.  The consequences of an assassination would be whatever I deemed them to be.



> I am sorry if this seems antagonistic.  Maybe you feel that you shouldn't need to actually read much to be able to make big personalzied changes in a shared setting, but i strongly disagree in general, not just with FR.



There's nothing shared about the setting, though.  It's me and my players, and in this theoretical game, I've said "Grey box is the only canonical source for the Realms.  No novels, no other sourcebooks, no Avatar, no Spellplague.  This is how it is."

I can do whatever I want to the Realms.  I can do whatever I want to the Star Wars Universe.

Setting canon should be used for inspiration, and never for limitation.  I want to read a setting book for ideas of what I can make happen - not for limits and things that I should not change, lest there be dire consequences.

-O


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 4, 2009)

Obryn said:


> I can do whatever I want to the Realms.  I can do whatever I want to the Star Wars Universe.




Ironicly my idea (loose idea not run yet, or even close to ready to run) for a non canon star wars game, one where we play Phanotm Menece, Attack of the Clones, and Revenge of the sith...however they are nothing like the movies. Infact take only the orginal trilogy (new hope, empire, jedi) and take what they say about history to be the only canon... is the regarded by all the canon lawyers as an awsome idea...

so we have no jar jar, we have obewan be yoda's student, we have vador hunt down and kill the jedi...

kinda funny how no one says "But jar jar...or but 3po was built by anikin"


----------



## SPECTRE666 (Jul 5, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> Well, IME, canon lawyers don't really want to _play_ in their preferred setting so much as they want to show off their knowledge of it and flaunt that over other people. In my opinion, being a canon lawer is less about love for a given setting than it is about exerting control over others and making oneself the center of attention.



This is so true. The FR Forum Lead from the Wizards Forums fits this to a tee.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 5, 2009)

You know, I've been following this thread but there's something I don't think either side has actually said (perhaps I missed it?)

What exactly should be considered "reasonable" information that a DM should know about the Realms...


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 5, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> What exactly should be considered "reasonable" information that a DM should know about the Realms...




Another question would be the differences between a "reasonable" amount of knowledge about the Realms, and the amount of knowledge generally perceived to be necessary to run the Realms. In my opinion, there is a significant gap between these two things.


----------



## Brother Richard (Jul 5, 2009)

*What i'm Trying To Say*

its fine if you decide to use only certain things, but you would encounter problems in any shared setting.  The problem with FR and not most other settings is the overload of canon from novels, but none of the examples given have really addressed problems with issues stemming from this canon.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 5, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> You know, I've been following this thread but there's something I don't think either side has actually said (perhaps I missed it?)
> 
> What exactly should be considered "reasonable" information that a DM should know about the Realms...




"Reasonable" is a sliding scale that depends upon the DM- how much does he need to run a good game without going into information overload.

As I stated before, for me, its the stuff in the game books and nothing more.  And even then, I generally only keep the stuff I'm intending to use immanently or just used recently at my mental fingertips.  Everything else, I can look up.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 5, 2009)

Brother Richard said:


> its fine if you decide to use only certain things, but you would encounter problems in any shared setting.  The problem with FR and not most other settings is the overload of canon from novels, but none of the examples given have really addressed problems with issues stemming from this canon.



What problems would I run into, if I ran a grey box only FR game?

-O


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 5, 2009)

Obryn said:


> What problems would I run into, if I ran a grey box only FR game?




Besides the obvious conversion issues?   Probably the herd of old school players beating a path to your door.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 5, 2009)

Obryn said:


> What problems would I run into, if I ran a grey box only FR game?
> 
> -O




Players who expect you to incorporate later lore they are fans of?


----------



## Obryn (Jul 5, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Besides the obvious conversion issues?   Probably the herd of old school players beating a path to your door.



Hah!

No, really - Brother Richard mentioned "problems" and I'm confused what those would be.  I love rolling with minimalist settings, and love picking up the loose ends and making them my own.

I don't think conversion would be a big issue, honestly.  The grey box is largely system-free, as I remember - as are most of the original FR series booklets.  It's mostly a map and a gazetteer, much like Greyhawk but somewhat more detailed.

It has been a few years since I've looked, though. 

-O


----------



## Obryn (Jul 5, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Players who expect you to incorporate later lore they are fans of?



I'd try to hold back my tears. 

-O


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 5, 2009)

Well, there's also the light brown print on pseudo-parchment paper.  That might be a tad hard to read if you've advanced in years.


----------



## Charger28Alpha (Jul 5, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> You know, I've been following this thread but there's something I don't think either side has actually said (perhaps I missed it?)
> 
> What exactly should be considered "reasonable" information that a DM should know about the Realms...




That is very dependent on the DM and the players in each group that plays in FR.  As was shown up thread, I find that what is available on the Wiki as a primary source, the 3rd Ed Campaign book, and two older regional books (free downloads from WOTC) which I referenced to flesh out stuff from the Wiki, were plenty for me.  However, others like Underthumb want more detail.

For me this is why FR has been the flagship setting.  If you want minimal background to build upon you can, and if you want a setting with a detailed intertwined history it is there.  

Brother Richard, you keep refering to FR as a "shared" setting, and seem to be using FR being a "shared" setting as  means to suggest limits on what can and can't be done by DMs and players.  Since nothing done at any tables other than ones you, or anybody, plays at effects other tables, how is FR a "shared" setting? And since what happens at other folk's tables does not effect you, why should you care?


----------



## JeffB (Jul 5, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Besides the obvious conversion issues?   Probably the herd of old school players beating a path to your door.




Yup. I'd be knocking 

And the OGB is relatively system free as I recall. Have fun. I sold mine a few years back but I'm seriously thinking of picking it up again-that or the 4E FRCG- they seem more similar than any other versions of the setting (i.e. here's a nice overview, now take the ball and run with it, which is the way I prefer my setting books)


----------



## wingsandsword (Jul 5, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> You know, I've been following this thread but there's something I don't think either side has actually said (perhaps I missed it?)
> 
> What exactly should be considered "reasonable" information that a DM should know about the Realms...



That varies widely. 

The first FR game I ever ran in was very minimalist in what the DM knew.  The DM didn't even have any core campaign setting material, this was the 2e era of the late 90's so the excellent 3e FRCS hadn't been published yet, and our FLGS didn't have the 2e-era FR box set in stock.  So, it was run based on what the DM had pieced together from playing in a previous FR campaign under a different DM (which was pretty loose with canon), playing Pool of Radiance on the computer years ago, reading a couple of Realms articles in Dragon, and a few novels (Elminster: Making of a Mage, and a couple of Drizzt ones I think), and owning copies of Faiths & Avatars and Volo's Guide to All Things Magical.  

So, from these scattered sources he ran a FR game that was just fine since none of the other players had ever played the Realms and only vaguely knew of it as another D&D setting.  If you're playing to generic D&D players that don't know the realms, or novice players who don't know D&D at all, nor the Realms from novels, you can be as minimalist as you want.

If you've got a group of hardcore fans that are the aforementioned "canon lawyers" then you'd better be one yourself, at least if you want to make them happy.  The good news is that I think they are pretty rare, all things given.  Yeah, they're out there (and we've even seen them in this thread), but I think my initial assertion in the OP that they are fairly rare (but memorable) seems to have been upheld by this thread.

I guess it comes down to, just make sure you know as much about the setting as the consensus of your players.  For most groups, read through the FRCS and if you're going to be spending a lot of time in one area read up in detail on that area and consider getting any region-specific texts for that area if you want to be thorough.  Honestly, I'd consider everything outside the core box sets and core campaign setting books for each edition (assuming you're running in the normal time depicted with that edition) as the essentials, and all other suppliments, novels, sourcebooks, Dragon articles ect. as optional.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 5, 2009)

wingsandsword said:


> So, from these scattered sources he ran a FR game that was just fine since none of the other players had ever played the Realms and only vaguely knew of it as another D&D setting.  If you're playing to generic D&D players that don't know the realms, or novice players who don't know D&D at all, nor the Realms from novels, you can be as minimalist as you want.




Indeed, and this can apply to most anything.  I've look at fantasy art from book covers, or even the back cover book blurb, and come up with ideas that weren't similar to what was found within.  Heck, I only had a vague idea what Dark Sun was about, but as I was considering buying the initial campaign set, I was thinking what Defilers and Templars were.  If I'd made it on my own, there's no telling how different it would have been from the official version.

I wonder what ideas people would get if they were given 12 bullet points of an existing setting...


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Jul 5, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Players who expect you to incorporate later lore they are fans of?




Let them run a game if they want that. Otherwise i would ask them "what about '_this is a Grey Box game taking place in 1357 DR'_ did you not understand? "


----------



## Jared Rascher (Jul 5, 2009)

I empathize with people having whatever problem they might be having in their campaigns, but I am quite frankly shocked at the outright abuse heaped on Ed Greenwood in this thread.  

It makes perfect sense that some designers and authors may not produce material that is to everyone's taste.  In fact, I think that is the biggest sticking point that people have in the FR debate, the gap between people that view the setting as having the "job" of being "generic D&D hosting ground," and the people that are fans of the setting divorced of a specific set of rules.

I don't have any problems with players and DMs that don't want the level of detail that the FR offers.  Its just a different style of game.  Its not right or wrong.  I do think that WOTC, and TSR before it, have made a mistake in trying to put the "job" of "generic setting" before the setting itself, given that they allowed it to become more detailed and develop a fan base that was dependant on those details.

On the other hand, it is rather reprehensible to make personal attacks on Ed Greenwood, and to make broad generalizations about his games or his players based on campaign moments taken completely out of context for the express purpose of somehow showing how "wrong" his thinking is.  

On top of all of that, one of the saddest things of is is that I rarely see designers that have worked with Ed and have stood on his shoulders building on his work, and not just in the Realms, but on all of the various things that he has contributed to D&D over the years, that never seemed to be moved to defend the man when the long knives come out.  

On that note, I have seen the designers at Paizo defend Ed and his long history with the game, but outside of them I've seen only blank space when a paragon of the industry is mauled, personally.  I don't care of anyone wants to say "I don't like Ed's NPCs" or "I don't like this about his settings," but the assault to his professionalism, ability to entertain his own friends, and the attacks on his character all really go beyond the pale.

Like the Realms or hate them, defend the 4E version of them or not, but please, don't attack the man in the hopes that it somehow proves your point about the setting he created.


----------



## S'mon (Jul 5, 2009)

KnightErrantJR said:


> ...ability to entertain his own friends...




I think clearly he must be well able to entertain his own friends, but his GMing is not a good model for general use.  In the hands of most GMs his deus-ex-machina interventions by godlike PCs are a really really bad idea.  This is definitely a concern of mine.

On another point where he's been criticised, the amount of sex and the free-love ethos in his work doesn't bother me much* (I think it can be easily ignored), though given this it suprises me that "Angry Mothers from Heck" TSR used his world as its signature setting in the 2e era.

*The opening to "Drow of the Underdark" did rather weird me out**.  But I don't read Ed's novels, so no problem there.  I certainly don't begrudge him his fantasies or lifestyle.

**Mostly because it really had nothing to do with drow.  Drow priestesses having kinky sex with summoned Type III demon per some Driz'zt book I recall, would have been fine.


----------



## Jared Rascher (Jul 5, 2009)

I'm not going to spend too much time on this, but since you brought this up, my point in mentioning this is, in part, to show that someone took a comment of his, out of context, not having seen the whole however many hour session that was going on, and has extrapolated that _every time _his players get into trouble Elminster or some other powerful NPC shows up and saves them.  Without seeing the entire campaign, its just not possible to make that assumption, and given the fact that I've also heard references to  how many times Nain Keenwhistler died, and the fact that many Knights of Myth Drannor have died as well, I don't think its fair to guess at Ed's DMing style based on the fact that he has said that, if you want to, you can once in a while use Elminster to push the plot in a given direction.


----------



## S'mon (Jul 5, 2009)

Um, I'm going by the accounts of Ed's campaign I've seen, by him, in his own words.   If anyone was taking it out of context, he was.  Obviously it (NPC intervention) works - for him, and his players.  I get the impression that his campaign is more simulationist than gamist, that may be a factor.


----------



## Primal (Jul 5, 2009)

S'mon said:


> Um, I'm going by the accounts of Ed's campaign I've seen, by him, in his own words.   If anyone was taking it out of context, he was.  Obviously it (NPC intervention) works - for him, and his players.  I get the impression that his campaign is more simulationist than gamist, that may be a factor.




If I had to use the GNS theory -- and this is based on what I've read of his campaigns on Candlekeep -- I'd rather say that his campaigns are probably *narrativist*; apparently Ed is still running [houseruled/streamlined] 1E, but whenever the rules stand in the way of creativity/story, story always prevails over them.


----------



## S'mon (Jul 5, 2009)

Primal said:


> If I had to use the GNS theory -- and this is based on what I've read of his campaigns on Candlekeep -- I'd rather say that his campaigns are probably *narrativist*; apparently Ed is still running [houseruled/streamlined] 1E, but whenever the rules stand in the way of creativity/story, story always prevails over them.




I meant Simulation as used in GNS - a focus on exploration of setting & character.  As opposed to Gamism - focus on challenging the players to overcome threats/challenges/obstacles and 'win'.

What you describe actually gets shoehorned into Simulation in GNS (so that Narrativism can be confined to 'exploration of Premise'), but that's a different kettle of fish.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 5, 2009)

The number of times I've heard somebody describe an event, and it not match my recollection of it, or I've heard somebody recount somebody else's description and it not match...is quite high.  I simply do not trust people's accounts, even when it's their own, it's way too easy for misinterpretation to occur.

Therefore, I'm reluctant to make any note of what happens in Greenwood's games, and fortunately (or unfortunately), it's not an issue for me, since I don't have to think anything of his games.  Not like I'm going to play in them.

Obviously YMMV.


----------



## Primal (Jul 6, 2009)

S'mon, as to your comments about "Primal-esque" canon lawyering... as I said in an earlier post, I'm not against changes to canon *if* they benefit the campaign and also make sense (do not violate internal consistency and/or are believable). For example, I'd probably walk out if the DM started with "Alright, guys, you're travelling from Silverymoon to the village of Hommlet to investigate some rumours about a cult of Vecna...". However, if the DM chose to have the bland and generic 8th level local lord replaced with a more interesting NPC, I'd have no objections to that; I do that myself in every campaign (i.e. I read the relevant supplements I own and then pick what I like and change the rest to better fit the campaign).

Of course, if the DM only owns the Grey Boxed Set, I don't expect him to suddenly buy every book that has some lore about Town X. Absence of lore is not what usually troubles me (I *do* have a problem with DMs who don't detail the area at all, and generally don't do NPC descriptions)... rather, what really bugs me is glaring inconsistencies with the canon that are not explained in or out of the story (e.g. a Cormyrean town that's "alway's been a Zhentarim town"). And, of course, that the lore DM chooses to replace the canon with does not feel "Realms-y", e.g. local lords with RW names or homebrewed deities.

So, when you're running a game to FR "veterans", it's good to be familiar with the setting in general, and not just the local area, but I'm not advocating that you should read and own every book to be able to run a FR campaign. If you want to run a FR campaign set in 1357, I'd be totally cool with that.


----------



## Primal (Jul 6, 2009)

S'mon said:


> I meant Simulation as used in GNS - a focus on exploration of setting & character.  As opposed to Gamism - focus on challenging the players to overcome threats/challenges/obstacles and 'win'.
> 
> What you describe actually gets shoehorned into Simulation in GNS (so that Narrativism can be confined to 'exploration of Premise'), but that's a different kettle of fish.




Hmmm... I thought the "realistic" rules (and physics supported by rules) were an important part of Simulationism, as in such games as Rolemaster or Harn? I may be wrong here, because it's been a while since I read the GNS theory, and I haven't discussed Ed's DMing style with him in person.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 6, 2009)

KnightErrantJR said:


> I'm not going to spend too much time on this, but since you brought this up, my point in mentioning this is, in part, to show that someone took a comment of his, out of context, not having seen the whole however many hour session that was going on, and has extrapolated that _every time _his players get into trouble Elminster or some other powerful NPC shows up and saves them.




now it is you takeing it out of context, did you listen to the pdcast?
They asked about the fact that people complain about El...he answer was DMs are useing him wrong, then gave this example of how to do it right...

If he runs his game that way fine, if he doesn't fine...but I have major problems with him giving DMs 'advice' that goes against most DMs idea of good gameing. 


I think every game (yours, mine, Ed's, Gary's) all run diffrent. How ever if giving advice you should becarful of how it comes off...I worry that DMs hear that type of thing and run Deus Ex Minster that way...



> I don't think its fair to guess at Ed's DMing style based on the fact that he has said that, if you want to, you can once in a while use Elminster to push the plot in a given direction.




I don't care what his game is like...I never guessed what his game is like...his advice sucked...that is what I am targeting his advice...



Primal said:


> > For example, I'd probably walk out if the DM started with "Alright, guys, you're travelling from Silverymoon to the village of Hommlet to investigate some rumours about a cult of Vecna...".
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 6, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> yet you attacked my game idea like a rabid racoon cornererd...




Didn't seem particular rabid to me.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 6, 2009)

Primal said:


> /snip
> 
> For example, I'd probably walk out if the DM started with "Alright, guys, you're travelling from Silverymoon to the village of Hommlet to investigate some rumours about a cult of Vecna...". However, if the DM chose to have the bland and generic 8th level local lord replaced with a more interesting NPC, I'd have no objections to that; I do that myself in every campaign (i.e. I read the relevant supplements I own and then pick what I like and change the rest to better fit the campaign).
> 
> /snip




So, you're basically saying that because I am using a shared world, I, as DM, no longer have control over my campaign?  That I cannot add material from outside sources to the setting that you do not personally approve of?  Your response to a DM adding such material would be to walk about of the game?

Wow, and I got absolutely hammered for saying that DM's should not allow their personal pet peeves to limit player choice.    Primal's flat out saying that if a DM deviates from FR canon in a way he does not approve of, he will not play, because, let's not forget, if I do replace a lord with something he does like, that's ok.

Since when do you, Primal, get to have final say over what's interesting or not in my campaign?

Well, I suppose voting with your feet certainly is your prerogative.  My response would be probably fairly predictable.  Be sure to close the door on your way out.  Thanks.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 6, 2009)

Hussar said:


> because, let's not forget, if I do replace a lord with something he does like, that's ok.




he even said (I belive it was a bit of a slip of the toug...er keyboard, al be it a tellign one) low level...he said "8th level generic" so again going back to my random pulled from my butt example...alustrial was off limits, becuse she was a power house chosen...


I want to use another example... I love this strip: I am still a dragon

now if I said that a chosen...lets just say Elminster fell in battle to the cult of the draagon, becuse they had 3 dragons, and an anti magic feild (Bye bye contingancies, magic buffs, and all magic items/spells) then they claw claw bit him to death...then they lower the field and use trap the soul  or soul bind to insure he can not be raised...it is now the PCs job to rescue his soul. What would all the FR Fans say to that??


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 6, 2009)

I say have fun, enjoy yourself.   Hope you have a good adventure.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jul 6, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> What would all the FR Fans say to that??




Why do you keep lumping in all FR fans as one group? For instance, in your first example I noted that you should run it as you wanted to.

I would say the same thing again here.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 6, 2009)

Primal said:


> as I said in an earlier post, I'm not against changes to canon *if* they benefit the campaign and also make sense (do not violate internal consistency and/or are believable).
> ....
> However, if the DM chose to have the bland and generic 8th level local lord replaced with a more interesting NPC, I'd have no objections to that; I do that myself in every campaign (i.e. I read the relevant supplements I own and then pick what I like and change the rest to better fit the campaign).



But that's a problem, in my mind.  Basically, you're saying that a DM should feel free to change stuff - so long as they don't change too much, or else only change the boring bits.  I'm not good with that; if I'm given a detailed setting, I can guarantee it will be blown all to hell by mid-level.

I mean, in my Star Wars game, I had Jabba the Hutt assassinated by noghri under orders by Vader's apprentice Darth Nemesis (formerly Princess Leia) and replaced with a different, force-sensitive Hutt as part of a grand political power-grab against the Emperor.  When I get a setting, I _blow it up._



> Of course, if the DM only owns the Grey Boxed Set, I don't expect him to suddenly buy every book that has some lore about Town X. Absence of lore is not what usually troubles me (I *do* have a problem with DMs who don't detail the area at all, and generally don't do NPC descriptions)... rather, what really bugs me is glaring inconsistencies with the canon that are not explained in or out of the story (e.g. a Cormyrean town that's "alway's been a Zhentarim town"). And, of course, that the lore DM chooses to replace the canon with does not feel "Realms-y", e.g. local lords with RW names or homebrewed deities.



But you're kinda contradicting yourself.  If I only invest in the grey box, and I'm only interested in using the grey box as a source, I as a DM _don't know_ if my changes will be internally consistent in the greater canon.  I also, honestly, wouldn't care.

If that excludes canon-lawyers from playing in my games, I'd have to be fine with that.  I think they could be missing out on a fun experience that violates their expectations, though.

-O


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jul 6, 2009)

Obryn said:


> But that's a problem, in my mind.  Basically, you're saying that a DM should feel free to change stuff - so long as they don't change too much, or else only change the boring bits.  I'm not good with that; if I'm given a detailed setting, I can guarantee it will be blown all to hell by mid-level.
> 
> I mean, in my Star Wars game, I had Jabba the Hutt assassinated by noghri under orders by Vader's apprentice Darth Nemesis (formerly Princess Leia) and replaced with a different, force-sensitive Hutt as part of a grand political power-grab against the Emperor.  When I get a setting, I _blow it up._
> 
> -O




I think as long as the players know ahead of time it's a game taking place in the SW setting but not using any of the established 'history' as the baseline then you're good to go.


----------



## JeffB (Jul 6, 2009)

I do feel there should  be *some* internal consistency, for my own tastes- I'd certainly use the Hommlett map, and perhaps the general plot point surrounding it , but I'd change names and give it more Realms ..err.."flavor"? (I'd change the name of the Temple and pick a couple of appropriate Realms deities).

But thats me, other DM's of course are free to do what they wish

I think this Zeb Cook quote from a recent Grognardia interview fits here (though it was said regarding 2E in a general sense)



			
				 Zeb Cook said:
			
		

> I think people sometimes get too fixated about what's "official" to see what they could do with the whole.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 6, 2009)

Obryn said:


> But that's a problem, in my mind.  Basically, you're saying that a DM should feel free to change stuff - so long as they don't change too much, or else only change the boring bits.




That may be a problem, but that's the reality of dealing with human beings, some of them may not agree with your changes.  Fortunately, it's not mandatory that everybody enjoy playing in your games, nor do you have to enjoy having everybody in your games.  You can be selective.



> If that excludes canon-lawyers from playing in my games, I'd have to be fine with that.  I think they could be missing out on a fun experience that violates their expectations, though.




Or they could be avoiding something that just wouldn't appeal to them.  Believe it or not, I've had people say "Try it, you'll like it" and not understand that not only did I not like it, I'm upset at them for forcing it upon me.  There are far more enjoyable games I'll never have time for than I'll ever play so I'm not going to fret over missed opportunities.  It's the wasted time that bothers me.

Note, of course, I'm not applying this to you in specific, as I don't know your gaming that well, just addressing the issue of missing out.  Which applies to many things, movies, music, books, food, etc...as an argument, "they could be missing out" is rather weak on its own, and just doesn't appeal to me.  It feels far too coercive.  So no thanks!


----------



## Maggan (Jul 6, 2009)

Obryn said:


> When I get a setting, I _blow it up._




When I run a setting, my players blow it up.

They wreak such havoc that it is impossible to adhere to a static canon, and still keep my sanity. 

They want an interactive world, where they can change stuff. I give them that. And the ungrateful sods then go around changing stuff! For fun!

The horror!

/M


----------



## Obryn (Jul 6, 2009)

Force?  Who's forcing?

I said "could" and "might."  They might not - and I'd be fine with them not playing.

As it stands, though, questions like this are _precisely_ why I don't run games in the Realms.  If I'm homebrewing or running an alt-history game (like that SW game I mentioned), I don't have to worry about setting canon lawyers thinking I'm deviating too far from the norm.  It's another mark against using the setting for gaming, in my book.

-O


----------



## Obryn (Jul 6, 2009)

Maggan said:


> When I run a setting, my players blow it up.
> 
> They wreak such havoc that it is impossible to adhere to a static canon, and still keep my sanity.



Oh, yeah, that too. 

The entire northern half of the Diamond Throne setting was unrecognizable by the time my players got done mucking around with it.

-O


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 6, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Force?  Who's forcing?




Well, I do feel you were coming on a little too strong with your "missing out" line, and I consider that to be akin to the things being forced upon me I've experienced in my life.   Perhaps you don't mean it that way, but it does remind me of those situations.

Sell your game on its own merits, don't try appeals like that.  I find them rather distasteful and coercive.  YMMV, you may not have had the same experiences with it as I have.  



> It's another mark against using the setting for gaming, in my book.




And for some people, that is a mark against you.  Some people like authenticity more than others.  Go figure.  It's all good, we can play our games, and not badger other people, for either wanting to make their games more authentic or for wanting our games to be more authentic.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jul 6, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Force?  Who's forcing?
> 
> I said "could" and "might."  They might not - and I'd be fine with them not playing.
> 
> ...




But what's the difference between SW and FR in this case?

One players will take no matter how far it deviates from the norm and the other players won't?

BS.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 6, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> But what's the difference between SW and FR in this case?




No GM can conceivably mess up SW more than George Lucas has already done.

Really, the guy ret-conned his own fricking movies!


----------



## Obryn (Jul 6, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Well, I do feel you were coming on a little too strong with your "missing out" line, and I consider that to be akin to the things being forced upon me I've experienced in my life.



...and that's not really at all what I meant.



JoeGKushner said:


> But what's the difference between SW and FR in this case?
> 
> One players will take no matter how far it deviates from the norm and the other players won't?
> 
> BS.



Judging from this thread?  Maybe so!  Maybe not, though - I have no idea!

Near as I can tell, and from the responses I've seen on both, people seem a lot more open to ripping apart the Star Wars setting and lighting it on fire than they are the Realms.   I think part of the thrill of alt-history settings is seeing familiar characters in unfamiliar roles, and I'd love to see it work for the Realms, too!

Actually, that's a good idea for a thread...  to be continued...

-O


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 6, 2009)

Obryn said:


> ...and that's not really at all what I meant.




Perhaps you don't mean it that way, but it does remind me of those situations.

Did you miss that?   Should I have emphasized it more?



> Near as I can tell, and from the responses I've seen on both, people seem a lot more open to ripping apart the Star Wars setting and lighting it on fire than they are the Realms.




Lol, knowing some Star Wars people as I do, they would be less fine than you might think.  

Others, of course, just say "Lightsabers?  WAHOO!!!"



> I think part of the thrill of alt-history settings is seeing familiar characters in unfamiliar roles, and I'd love to see it work for the Realms, too!




There's a significant difference between an alt-history Realms and a non-authentic one such as might offend the proverbial canon-lawyer.  The intentional change is one thing, the unintentional is another.

Besides, I'll note that in my experiences with Alternate history, they're as apt to beconcerned with getting an accurate basis to begin their divergence as any historian.  Check out soc.history.what-if for examples.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 6, 2009)

> Lol, knowing some Star Wars people as I do, they would be less fine than you might think.
> 
> Others, of course, just say "Lightsabers?  WAHOO!!!"
> 
> ...



Right, but the earlier the divergence in a fictional setting, the lower the amount of canonical material a prospective DM would have to familiarize themselves with.  So it's not _zero_ homework by any means - but after that point, there's basically no such thing as canon.

I've decided to toy around with the idea here.

-O


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 6, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Right, but the earlier the divergence in a fictional setting, the lower the amount of canonical material a prospective DM would have to familiarize themselves with.




Which comes at a price of being potentially less interesting.  It's a balance between "familiar, but different" and "totally changed" which can bite you, or help you, depending on how you spice up the soup so to speak.  And of course, whoever you're serving it to.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jul 6, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Right, but the earlier the divergence in a fictional setting, the lower the amount of canonical material a prospective DM would have to familiarize themselves with.  So it's not _zero_ homework by any means - but after that point, there's basically no such thing as canon.
> 
> I've decided to toy around with the idea here.
> 
> -O




On the other hand, having a greater knowledge of the line, you can bring in elements that were unknown at the time of the original devergance in a different way. 

For example, there's a world of difference between just using the characters and elements of the first three Star Wars movies than making changes to those time periods using the expansion of material outside that initial timeline.

Ditto for the Realms.

What if the Shades returned during the Avatar Crisis?

What if the Aboleth Soverignty returned during the Year of Rogue Dragons?


----------



## Primal (Jul 6, 2009)

Obryn said:


> But that's a problem, in my mind.  Basically, you're saying that a DM should feel free to change stuff - so long as they don't change too much, or else only change the boring bits.  I'm not good with that; if I'm given a detailed setting, I can guarantee it will be blown all to hell by mid-level.
> 
> I mean, in my Star Wars game, I had Jabba the Hutt assassinated by noghri under orders by Vader's apprentice Darth Nemesis (formerly Princess Leia) and replaced with a different, force-sensitive Hutt as part of a grand political power-grab against the Emperor.  When I get a setting, I _blow it up._




Well, if the players are okay with that, where's the problem? I mean, I don't think I could run an Eberron campaign for hard core Eberron fans with 4E books alone, or replace Sharn or Xen'Drik with my own versions without at least some of them grumbling about it. Or organize a tournament of [American] football with my own rules that make the game resemble soccer more than football. And that's just how it is; you can't expect everyone to be okay with your style.



> But you're kinda contradicting yourself.  If I only invest in the grey box, and I'm only interested in using the grey box as a source, I as a DM _don't know_ if my changes will be internally consistent in the greater canon.  I also, honestly, wouldn't care.
> 
> If that excludes canon-lawyers from playing in my games, I'd have to be fine with that.  I think they could be missing out on a fun experience that violates their expectations, though.
> 
> -O




No, I'm not; as I noted, there are a lot of areas in FR that have been only superficially covered. If you're running a game for diehard fans, it'd be wise to place the campaign in one of those areas, or, quite naturally, you might end up contradicting the canon sources. It's not any different than me trying to run a campaign in Sharn or Stormreach without owning the books for players who own/have read those books.

I don't know what you expect from the players... to repeat, I wouldn't run an intrigue-laden, low-combat campaign for combat fans, just as I wouldn't run an Eberron campaign set in popular, detailed areas if the players already have run or played in campaigns set there. As I've said before, you need to adjust your style with each group you're running games in, because every group has different expectations. I don't think a good DM will just cram his campaign down their throats, regardless of what and where the players would like to play.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 6, 2009)

Primal said:


> No, I'm not; as I noted, there are a lot of areas in FR that have been only superficially covered. If you're running a game for diehard fans, it'd be wise to place the campaign in one of those areas, or, quite naturally, you might end up contradicting the canon sources.



how do I know what has and has not been covered???


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 6, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> how do I know what has and has not been covered???




Well, in the grey box, they specifically declared certain areas to be undeveloped, but I think this has been left by the wayside.  Maybe not though, I haven't really looked through the 4e book or even the 3e one.

But anyway, the best way to proceed would be to ask your players for their input.  Even without regards to coverage in official sources,  it's possible they may be die-hard Drizzt fans, so messing with the Sword Coast area may offend them, but they couldn't care less about the Dalelands.  

I do that sort of thing when making any changes to the base rule set.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 6, 2009)

FWIW, I am, if anything, _less_ familiar with Eberron than I am with the Realms.  And so all of your Eberron examples seem dandy to me.



Primal said:


> Well, if the players are okay with that, where's the problem? I mean, I don't think I could run an Eberron campaign for hard core Eberron fans with 4E books alone, or replace Sharn or Xen'Drik with my own versions without at least some of them grumbling about it. Or organize a tournament of [American] football with my own rules that make the game resemble soccer more than football. And that's just how it is; you can't expect everyone to be okay with your style.



No, and I don't.  There are many, many reasons why FR is a poor campaign setting for the kinds of games I run and the kinds of players I run the game for.  It would be silly for me to try and run a game for canon purists when neither my players nor I am willing to spend the kind of time it would take to learn the canon.



> I don't know what you expect from the players... to repeat, I wouldn't run an intrigue-laden, low-combat campaign for combat fans, just as I wouldn't run an Eberron campaign set in popular, detailed areas if the players already have run or played in campaigns set there. As I've said before, you need to adjust your style with each group you're running games in, because every group has different expectations. I don't think a good DM will just cram his campaign down their throats, regardless of what and where the players would like to play.



I wouldn't ever ram a campaign down my players' throats.  I don't even know how I could do anything like that, unless I was running some kind of D&D gulag.

So I'll pose a query to you - let's say I'm a DM and I'm only vaguely familiar with the Realms.  Several of my players are huge FR fans and have read just about everything that has come out for it.

Clearly, I can't run a canonical FR game because I lack the knowledge and know less about the setting than my players.  Apparently, I shouldn't run a non-canonical FR game, either, because it will violate their expectations.

What options am I left with?  In my mind, assuming we all want to play D&D together because we're buddies and like gaming together, I should avoid the canonical setting entirely, or else blow it up so much that only bits and pieces of canon remain.

What other alternatives would you suggest?

-O


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jul 6, 2009)

My view is that you should let the players know your weakenss with the 'canon', what type of game you're going to run, and ask them if there's anything they may be able to add to the campaign.

If they're all such experts, they may have resources that you didn't and you may find those resources make some great ideas that you'd never have thought of on your own.

Or you just pick up the dice and play.



Obryn said:


> FWIW, I am, if anything, _less_ familiar with Eberron than I am with the Realms.  And so all of your Eberron examples seem dandy to me.
> 
> 
> No, and I don't.  There are many, many reasons why FR is a poor campaign setting for the kinds of games I run and the kinds of players I run the game for.  It would be silly for me to try and run a game for canon purists when neither my players nor I am willing to spend the kind of time it would take to learn the canon.
> ...


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 6, 2009)

Obryn said:


> I wouldn't ever ram a campaign down my players' throats.  I don't even know how I could do anything like that, unless I was running some kind of D&D gulag.




Indeed, the freedom to leave is always there.  But that doesn't mean it can't be perceived that you're forcing someone to choose between leaving or accepting the unacceptable.  

Consider that point of view for a bit if you can.



> What other alternatives would you suggest?




I'll second the suggestion of asking your players what they want.  It may be that you'll have to accept as a group that you can't run a FR game that is mutually acceptable, but perhaps somebody else in it can.  Fortunately, there's no requirement that you DM, or that you must DM a game in the Realms.  

If you try to say there is, then I'll just say, stop coming up with absurd hypotheticals.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jul 6, 2009)

So, for clarification, is everybody basically telling Obryn that he can't or shouldn't run a FR game unless he's willing to buy the _entire_ game line, learn _all_ of the canon, and adhere to it _religiously_? Because that's really what I'm getting out of the last few pages of the 'discussion.' 

The attitude seems to be that if a DM can't be bothered to drop a few thousand dollars and years of their lives on learning a D&D setting inside and out, they should instead move on to another setting or let somebody else who can meet those 'requirements' be the DM.  

Since we're speaking of absurdities, _that_ is absurd.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 6, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Indeed, the freedom to leave is always there.  But that doesn't mean it can't be perceived that you're forcing someone to choose between leaving or accepting the unacceptable.
> 
> Consider that point of view for a bit if you can.



No, because that doesn't resemble any gaming group I've ever been a part of.  We get together every week because we like playing RPGs, and every few weeks we decide what we're doing next as a group.  (Right now, for example, it's Call of Cthulhu.)



> I'll second the suggestion of asking your players what they want.  It may be that you'll have to accept as a group that you can't run a FR game that is mutually acceptable, but perhaps somebody else in it can.  Fortunately, there's no requirement that you DM, or that you must DM a game in the Realms.
> 
> If you try to say there is, then I'll just say, stop coming up with absurd hypotheticals.



Of course there's no requirement for either.  I am saying in that situation, if I am DMing, I should not DM in the Realms.  Which is, AFAIK, what I've been advocating - I should run games in a homebrew or a different setting entirely.

-O


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jul 6, 2009)

Can you point out where I say that once since you say 'everybody'?



jdrakeh said:


> So, for clarification, is everybody basically telling Obryn that he can't or shouldn't run a FR game unless he's willing to buy the _entire_ game line, learn _all_ of the canon, and adhere to it _religiously_? Because that's really what I'm getting out of the last few pages of the 'discussion.'
> 
> The attitude seems to be that if a DM can't be bothered to drop a few thousand dollars and years of their lives on learning a D&D setting inside and out, they should instead move on to another setting or let somebody else who can meet those 'requirements' be the DM.
> 
> Since we're speaking of absurdities, _that_ is absurd.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 6, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> So, for clarification, is everybody basically telling Obryn that he can't or shouldn't run a FR game unless he's willing to buy the _entire_ game line, learn _all_ of the canon, and adhere to it _religiously_? Because that's really what I'm getting out of the last few pages of the 'discussion.'
> 
> The attitude seems to be that if a DM can't be bothered to drop a few thousand dollars and years of their lives on learning a D&D setting inside and out, they should instead move on to another setting or let somebody else who can meet those 'requirements' be the DM.
> 
> Since we're speaking of absurdities, _that_ is absurd.



FWIW, I don't quite get that vibe.

What I _am_ getting is that my inclination to stay away from the 2e-3e Realms was probably a good idea, in retrospect. 

I'm also curious because, clearly, people could run Forgotten Realms games back when there were very few supplements and only a handful of bad gaming novels in the product line.

-O


----------



## wingsandsword (Jul 6, 2009)

Primal said:


> For example, I'd probably walk out if the DM started with "Alright, guys, you're travelling from Silverymoon to the village of Hommlet to investigate some rumours about a cult of Vecna...".




I wouldn't walk out, but it would sure as heck raise my eyebrows.

Personally, I wouldn't think that inserting Hommlet wouldn't be that bad, it would not seriously break Realms canon to insert one extra little village someplace, especially if adapted slightly to the Realms (like putting it in Cormyr and having a Purple Dragon Knight lead the town guard, making the local temples be to Ilmater or Torm instead of St. Cuthbert and so on).  

Seriously, in a world that size it isn't a catastrophic canon break to add one little village.  Porting over the City of Greyhawk or something, then that's a problem, but the Realms already has an uber-city for adventuring in Waterdeep.

Now, as to the Cult of Vecna, if he is acting like Vecna is already a deity in the Realms I'd ask point-blank if he knows he's changing Realms canon that much and re-think my involvement at that point, but if the plot of the campaign is that some cultists of Vecna have arrived from Greyhawk via spelljamming/planewalking and are trying to set up a beachhead for Vecna to enter the Realms by starting up some cults and getting some worshippers then it would be cool (and be a way to introduce the Hand of Vecna or the Sword of Kas into a Realms campaign).


----------



## Primal (Jul 6, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> So, for clarification, is everybody basically telling Obryn that he can't or shouldn't run a FR game unless he's willing to buy the _entire_ game line, learn _all_ of the canon, and adhere to it _religiously_? Because that's really what I'm getting out of the last few pages of the 'discussion.'
> 
> The attitude seems to be that if a DM can't be bothered to drop a few thousand dollars and years of their lives on learning a D&D setting inside and out, they should instead move on to another setting or let somebody else who can meet those 'requirements' be the DM.
> 
> Since we're speaking of absurdities, _that_ is absurd.




Did you read my posts? I'm pretty explicitly saying (I said it in two different posts, I think) that I'm not expecting the DM to buy *anything*; rather, I'm suggesting that a "new" DM with experienced players (who know their canon) could run a campaign in one of the "undeveloped" areas or regions that have not seen much canon support. It's not just about FR fans -- I wouldn't expect diehard Dragonlance or Eberron fans to be comfortable with my own version and maps of a popular area (Sharn or Palanthas, for example).


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 6, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> So, for clarification, is everybody basically telling Obryn that he can't or shouldn't run a FR game unless he's willing to buy the _entire_ game line, learn _all_ of the canon, and adhere to it _religiously_?




No.  



> The attitude seems to be that if a DM can't be bothered to drop a few thousand dollars and years of their lives on learning a D&D setting inside and out, they should instead move on to another setting or let somebody else who can meet those 'requirements' be the DM.
> 
> Since we're speaking of absurdities, _that_ is absurd.




As absurd as a DM who can't be bothered to learn a setting at all before playing in it, with players who know and expect more authenticity out of it?  Or as a filmmaker who can't bother to get the heart of a character down before spending millions to make a pretentious movie series?

Probably.  Let's try not playing to the extremes here, it's probably not going to get us anywhere.

ETA:  And just so everybody is clear, the example in the preceding paragraph is a deliberate absurdity on my part to represent the degree of misrepresentation that can occur, and should not be taken by anybody as an attempt to accurately represent the views of anyone.  It is merely used to illustrate the way any polar extreme can be a hindrance, not an aid, to discussion.



Obryn said:


> No, because that doesn't resemble any gaming group I've ever been a part of.




Then this may be a weakness of yours, not having run into other groups that don't resemble yours.  Perhaps you might consider transferring the experience from other parts of your life?   Ever read a comic book that changed artists or writers?   Paid attention to Star Trek or Star Wars?  Watched any sports before or after they changed some rule?   Seen a movie that was based on some other property like a book, video game, or even D&D, and not been satisfied?



> Of course there's no requirement for either.  I am saying in that situation, if I am DMing, I should not DM in the Realms.  Which is, AFAIK, what I've been advocating - I should run games in a homebrew or a different setting entirely.




No, I really didn't think that was the crux of the discussion, we were somewhere else, slightly to the left.  I suspect that there's quite a lot of that in this thread, as folks talk past each other ever so slightly, which increases the divergence, even though they're closer than they think.  Happens a lot.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 6, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> As absurd as a DM who can't be bothered to learn a setting at all before playing in it, with players who know and expect more authenticity out of it?  Or as a filmmaker who can't bother to get the heart of a character down before spending millions to make a pretentious movie series?



I think you know that's a pretty big mischaracterization of what I'm advocating.



> Then this may be a weakness of yours, not having run into other groups that don't resemble yours.  Perhaps you might consider transferring the experience from other parts of your life?   Ever read a comic book that changed artists or writers?   Paid attention to Star Trek or Star Wars?  Watched any sports before or after they changed some rule?   Seen a movie that was based on some other property like a book, video game, or even D&D, and not been satisfied?



Thanks, Dr. Phil.  Could you leave the armchair psychoanalysis out of this?  I'm talking about what settings are best for playing games with my friends, not buying tickets to your self-help seminar.

-O


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 6, 2009)

Obryn said:


> I think you know that's a pretty big mischaracterization of what I'm advocating.




And that's not exactly what it was meant to be(well, not of you specifically, mind you, just happens to be the contrast to what was put forth as the one's side), as it was a response to just such a mis-characterization from jdrakeh?  Because I'm pretty sure that was my intent.  Did you not notice where I said:

*Probably. Let's try not playing to the extremes here, it's probably not going to get us anywhere.
*

I don't mind being misunderstood, but it's kind of hard to be sure what you're reading. I  don't mind trimming quotes, that's fine, but in this case, it makes me wonder if you bothered to understand what I said.  Did you see it at all?



> Thanks, Dr. Phil.  Could you leave the armchair psychoanalysis out of this?  I'm talking about what settings are best for playing games with my friends, not buying tickets to your self-help seminar.




If you want advice on what to do with your friends, then you should start a post about it, and describe your friends.  Then we might get somewhere.   Me, I'm just trying to explain something I feel you're not understanding, and since by your own words you don't seem to have experienced it in your group enough to be able to empathize with another point of view, I suggested some other way to broaden your horizons.  If you don't want to do that, fine, but you needn't be insulting.  You can reject the suggestion, I won't force it upon you.  But think of how it looks to me.   And it'll probably look bad to the mods, so let's end this here before it gets us some red text.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Jul 6, 2009)

Yes, by all that is holy, let us abandon this "no, you misunderstood me. No, you misunderstood ME" discussion.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jul 6, 2009)

Primal said:


> Did you read my posts? I'm pretty explicitly saying (I said it in two different posts, I think) that I'm not expecting the DM to buy *anything*; rather, I'm suggesting that a "new" DM with experienced players (who know their canon) could run a campaign in one of the "undeveloped" areas or regions that have not seen much canon support. It's not just about FR fans.




Okay, so you're not saying that a new DM should buy the entire product line, just that they shouldn't run a game in 'developed' areas of the Realms until they do. Got it.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jul 6, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> As absurd as a DM who can't be bothered to learn a setting at all before playing in it, with players who know and expect more authenticity out of it?




_Nobody_ here has advocated running FR without learning it. People _have_ mentioned running FR out of the grey box only or with only core setting books, yet somehow several posters _have_ turned that into "Not doing research!" several times now, which is _exactly_ the kind of ridiculous canon lawyering that I think the OP was on about. 

Primal goes so far as to say that "new DMs" should limit their activities to undefined areas of the Realms, with the implication being that they aren't qualified to DM a Realms game in 'developed' areas until they know it inside and out (which, of course, requires the aforementioned investment of years and money that I alluded to). He even clarified this, so I'd be 100% certain to understand his position. 

Nothing says "Welcome to our hobby!" like telling people that they're doing it wrong and to go play in the kiddie pool until they buy up a product line and slavishly adhere to every last bit of it. I miss the days when people were encouraged to take a FRPG setting and make it their own.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jul 6, 2009)

But once again, not EVERYONE has said that.

Perhaps I'm simply on the ignore list.

Oh well. 

Back to your arguements. (Essentially what, two people on one side and two on another? Poor threads ballooned out and people probably think there are dozens of different people these last few pages as opposed to did not did so arguements...)


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 6, 2009)

jdrakeh, please do me a favor, go back and read post 266, where I already pointed out that one person missed the important line, that way I can avoid repeating myself.  Thanks in advance!

And you're probably right Joe.  Oh well.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jul 6, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Please go back and read post 266, where I already pointed out that one person missed the important line, that way I can avoid repeating myself.  Thanks in advance!




I just did that and edited my post accordingly to remove a reference to "you" (i.e., Bumbles) — it doesn't, however, make the rest of my post any less germane.


----------



## Primal (Jul 7, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> Okay, so you're not saying that a new DM should buy the entire product line, just that they shouldn't run a game in 'developed' areas of the Realms until they do. Got it.




No, I'm saying that* if *you have *veteran FR players (or even DMs)* sitting at your table,* it might be wise to run a game in one of the undeveloped areas* -- just as it would be wise to do that *with a group of Eberron fans who know more about Eberron that you -- the DM -- do*. *Especially if you know they're "diehard" fans*.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 7, 2009)

Really, this isn't helping either. ~ PCat


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 7, 2009)

Primal said:


> No, I'm saying that* if *you have *veteran FR players (or even DMs)* sitting at your table,* it might be wise to run a game in one of the undeveloped areas* -- just as it would be wise to do that *with a group of Eberron fans who know more about Eberron that you -- the DM -- do*. *Especially if you know they're "diehard" fans*.




and what I am saying is if you want people to 'get into' the realms you need to stop all of that way of thinking...or it will be a dead setting. Luckly WotC thought of that and bang 100 year jump.

You see your whole post screams "GO over there adults play in this section"


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 7, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> and what I am saying is if you want people to 'get into' the realms you need to stop all of that way of thinking




It's not the job of the players to want that, is it?   Publishers might, but player interests may not be the same, and as such, the two may come into conflict.

So it becomes a question, can we do X to please Y without offending Z?  

Which is something tough to answer. 



> Luckly WotC thought of that and bang 100 year jump.




Lucky for them perhaps.  But if they weren't careful they could end up like Sony and its changes to the Star Wars MMO.  Or the reaction against 2nd edition, 3rd edition, 4 edition.  Or...well, the list goes on.  For every Ultimates line, there's a risk of failure.  (And I honestly think the Ultimates line has played out for Marvel.)



> You see your whole post screams "GO over there adults play in this section"




I think we might want to avoid this kind of characterization.  I'd give an example, but the last time I did that, it lead to more misunderstanding, so I'll just ask that this kind of thing not be done.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jul 7, 2009)

Double post.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jul 7, 2009)

Nevermind. Not worth it.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 7, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> Nevermind. Not worth it.




Removing my words you took out of context would be quite worth it to me.   I would greatly appreciate it if you did so.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jul 7, 2009)

That's making it worse, not better. Enough.  ~ PCat


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 7, 2009)

Post removed.


----------



## Eridanis (Jul 7, 2009)

Keefe the Thief said:


> Yes, by all that is holy, let us abandon this "no, you misunderstood me. No, you misunderstood ME" discussion.




Couldn't have said it better myself. Let's stop deconstructing others' posting motives, thought processes and personal lives and get back to talking about gaming, please? Another warning, and the banhammer comes out.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jul 7, 2009)

Edited to remove post being made while Eridanis was posting his warning.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 7, 2009)

Ok, back to gaming.   How do folks feel about multi-media productions, such as the Pool(s) of Radiance adventure, computer game, and Novel?   In a sense, it was a way to have canon, yet somewhat flexible and blended?  The same applies to Curse of the Azure Bonds and the Myth Drannon follow-ups.

I think that shows how beneficial developing a canon can be, and how interesting it can be to adapt the same things to different needs  yet retain their familiarity.

And thought I've never played them, how do folks feel about the canon characters in the Baldur's Gate games?  Were they faithfully represented and did they contribute to the game?


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 7, 2009)

I would say that after 280+ posts worth of bickering that some problem with the Forgotten Realms does exist. A given person's mileage may vary, but issues exist that are at least somewhat commonplace.

Where there's smoke, there's fire...


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 7, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> I would say that after 280+ posts worth of bickering that some problem with the Forgotten Realms does exist. A given person's mileage may vary, but issues exist that are at least somewhat commonplace.
> 
> Where there's smoke, there's fire...




Well,  me, I think it's the people making the Smoke, not the Realms.  People always get into conflict, and there's no sense blaming the Realms for Human Nature.  If it wasn't one thing, it'd probably be another.

See prior posts for example.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 7, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Well,  me, I think it's the people making the Smoke, not the Realms.  People always get into conflict, and there's no sense blaming the Realms for Human Nature.  If it wasn't one thing, it'd probably be another.
> 
> See prior posts for example.




I like to think of it as this: The fact that some people do not have a problem does not mean that a problem does not exist for other people. If a problem exists for some people, the problem exists. 

The alternative is telling people that they are the problem or telling people that something is wrong with them, and that's being more than a little presumptuous.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 7, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Well,  me, I think it's the people making the Smoke, not the Realms.  People always get into conflict, and there's no sense blaming the Realms for Human Nature.  If it wasn't one thing, it'd probably be another.
> 
> See prior posts for example.




see here is the problem with the 'human nature argument"...

If the canon lawayers in my group where a problem all the time I would agree, but lets take them 1 at a time

1) My roommate: He has ever novel TSR or Wotc put out (or so he says). A quick look at his book shelf shows mee spelljammer, Ravenloft, Greyhawk, Realms, and Ebberon. I belive he has birth right ones but don't quote me ont hat... and even though I didn't see them I know he has every DL novel...
   He also was a marvel comic geek up through college (90's for him), and still has xmen and spidermen comics from teh 80's...
   He is a passing star wars fan (He stoped reading right after vector prime saying something about a moon that made him mad)
   Now, he has played in Marvel and DC games, spelljamer, Raven loft, Eberon, and genric games with no problem...but FR always gets him to react...always. 
    To his credit it normaly is shock and confused, but he was one of the two players that wanted to call in the big boys in my they invasion game...

2) Another good friend. He has read alot of FR novels (mostly borrowed from the huge liabrary that is my roommates room) He also owns almost every Ravenloft novel, and ever adventure, suplement, you name it for RL.
     He is the biggest comic nerd I know (and for the record we game in a comic/game store).
   He has never once uttered a complaint about ravenloft, or  a comic game (inless you count his hatred for sheild director hill that we herd every time sheild came in...)
    He ran a realms game that got run over by canon...and he was the bigest voice for the whole "Of cource symbol will help us" thing...

3) This guy isn't with us any more...he was every problem player roled into 1 Power gamer,  rules lawyer, cheater, canon lawyer.
     he shut down many a games, so I will skip him mostly. How ever he was also the one that shot down #2's game by arguening some obscure thing about one group or another...He never shut down agame with canon lawyering befroe (although he did also do that in star trek and WW owod, just not as bad)


Well i was typeing this I thought of a 4th example...although I should have brought this up earlier...

This guy who has a very strange photographic memorie for games and stuff ran a plane/dimension hopping story. It started at level 7 (2e) and ran through 23rd. We had gone and messed up just about every setting. We had even killed gods. I mean to say he had no problem with anything we had killed takisis in DL. Do you know ended the game? Our CN archmage (Mayfir games rules) got upstaged by elminster...so he was pissed. He used wish, and a bunch of divination and found el's real name, then carved it in a huge gem, and gifted it to him...It of cource was a trap (man I wish I rmember what spelll that was) the spell said no save if the except it and traped his soul. Then the PC's contingecy went off plane shifting him to sigle (where he was 'hoooked up' with the lady of pain so he new he was safe)

Now in this setting that we destroyed every cannon moment of every setting we touched...this set the DM off he ended the game, and said 3 of us PCs who worked with him were never allowed in his games again...the reason no one can beat elminster...

Now that was maybe 15 years ago, I still see him around, I am still baned from his games...forever...





now I know I am not alone in saying when a common thread is the setting, human nature has got a bit of an albi


----------



## Piratecat (Jul 7, 2009)

Thanks for getting back on track, everyone.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Jul 7, 2009)

I've never met a canon lawyer in person, and pray that I never will. Wait, I'm an agnostic, so I'll meditate. Or something.

These situations always require both the right (obsessive) personalities and the right (popular & detailed) material. FR, being the popular and detailed setting that it is, naturally attracts obsessive personalities to its mass of fans. But if it wasn't FR, it'd be GH or DL or Eberron. Heck, Eberron may yet be the next FR, it seems to have more than its share of zealous fans.

Anyway, game on. And find ways to emotionally manipulate any canon lawyers who may annoy you.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 7, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> I like to think of it as this: The fact that some people do not have a problem does not mean that a problem does not exist for other people. If a problem exists for some people, the problem exists.




Except the problem may not be what you think it is.  Imagine you complain about being hot, so you turn down the thermostat.  Now I'm cold.

Why?

Perhaps one of us is wearing a parka and the other in his skivies.  Perhaps one of is a walrus, and the other a tortoise.  Ok, so the former is a little more likely.  



> The alternative is telling people that they are the problem or telling people that something is wrong with them, and that's being more than a little presumptuous.




Except that's not what I'm saying.   I'm saying  it's not wrong to have another preference, that people can differ.   And if you think I'm saying that somebody is wrong in a sense of "bad wrong" as opposed to the "humans are imperfect and often have conflicts over things that amount to simple differences of perspective or preference" which is what I'm going for, then I'm sorry, but the former is not what I'm expressing at all.  It's the latter.  

You, to me, though, seem more like you're arguing to former, because saying that the problem is the Realms, and ignoring the conflict arising from people appears to itself be presumptuous, because you are saying that one person can be wrong for having another preference than yours.   Because obviously liking something that's flawed is bad, isn't it?  

Now perhaps you don't mean things that way, but it's how it is perceived.

Can't we just say some people like going along with canon, and that they're welcome to do so, without implying it's the fault of the Realms for encouraging that?



GMforPowergamers said:


> see here is the problem with the 'human nature argument"...
> 
> If the canon lawayers in my group where a problem all the time I would agree, but lets take them 1 at a time




And there's an unfounded conjecture, which if you look up further in the thread, I already talked about.  Let me see where it was...I know I mentioned the Dalelands....so...post 254.  

Perhaps I was a little oblique there, but I know what I was thinking at the time, that people's preferences to canon may not be monolithic. (I think I mentioned this elsewhere, but I'm not sure enough of what words I used to bother looking, and I think this shows I did give consideration to the idea already.)

What's the point?  People are often inconsistent.  Their buttons can be pushed with one thing, or another.  Go figure.  I know folks who will critique every lame storyline in Professional Wrestling, but won't even notice when similar versions come up in their favorite Soap Operas.  I know medical personnel who complain about authenticity on one medical show, but not another.  I know some who complain about them all.  



> now I know I am not alone in saying when a common thread is the setting, human nature has got a bit of an albi




Could be pure coincidence.  It happens. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc is still a fallacy.  

Honestly, I think we're back where we were a few days ago, with me suggesting that you go looking for some other examples.  There's actually an interesting story on Slashdot right now featuring City of Heroes which may be illuminating.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 7, 2009)

Tequila Sunrise said:


> Anyway, game on. And find ways to emotionally manipulate any canon lawyers who may annoy you.




Yeah, let's not demonize people here.  Please?  Perhaps you meant this as a joke, but you left out a smiley, so I don't know.  I do find the joke in exceptionally poor taste however, so it really doesn't matter.

And I certainly can imagine people acting that way to screw with people's heads in real life, in fact, I know people who have, so I'm going to say please, find better ways to deal with people than that.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 7, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Except the problem may not be what you think it is.  Imagine you complain about being hot, so you turn down the thermostat.  Now I'm cold.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Perhaps one of us is wearing a parka and the other in his skivies.  Perhaps one of is a walrus, and the other a tortoise.  Ok, so the former is a little more likely.




I'm sorry, but I have to call this a strawman here. You are still dismissing of the possibility that people may have real issues.





Bumbles said:


> Except that's not what I'm saying.   I'm saying  it's not wrong to have another preference, that people can differ.   And if you think I'm saying that somebody is wrong in a sense of "bad wrong" as opposed to the "humans are imperfect and often have conflicts over things that amount to simple differences of perspective or preference" which is what I'm going for, then I'm sorry, but the former is not what I'm expressing at all.  It's the latter.
> 
> You, to me, though, seem more like you're arguing to former, because saying that the problem is the Realms, and ignoring the conflict arising from people appears to itself be presumptuous, because you are saying that one person can be wrong for having another preference than yours.   Because obviously liking something that's flawed is bad, isn't it?




No, I'm saying that the reason for the conflict is irrelevant. Conflict is conflict. I could use FR and have conflict, or I could play something else and not have conflict. Not having conflict is better than conflict. The Forgotten Realms isn't god's gift to D&D, and putting in effort to overcome this conflict should be a choice, *not an expecation*. I don't owe it to FR to get over my issues. This isn't rocket science.   



Bumbles said:


> Now perhaps you don't mean things that way, but it's how it is perceived.
> 
> Can't we just say some people like going along with canon, and that they're welcome to do so, without implying it's the fault of the Realms for encouraging that?




The issue is that Forgotten Realms, for better or for worse, is the flagship setting of the D&D brand. It is the flagship setting by default, not by design, as if FR isn't the flagship setting, certainly nothing is. The issue with this is that there shouldn't be this level of conflict or baggage with the flagship setting of D&D.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 7, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> What's the point?  People are often inconsistent.  Their buttons can be pushed with one thing, or another.



yes, but when patterns are seen by people who have had no other communcation before...well then there might be something there...




> Go figure.  I know folks who will critique every lame storyline in Professional Wrestling, but won't even notice when similar versions come up in their favorite Soap Operas.  I know medical personnel who complain about authenticity on one medical show, but not another.  I know some who complain about them all.




I agree I know people who fall into each of those catagories...my fav is my mom who spet 7 or 8 years watching charmed, but thought buffy, angle, lost, heros, you name it were to dumb becuse they were soo unrealistic  




> Could be pure coincidence.  It happens. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc is still a fallacy.



what??? I have no idea what you just said..



> Honestly, I think we're back where we were a few days ago, with me suggesting that you go looking for some other examples.  There's actually an interesting story on Slashdot right now featuring City of Heroes which may be illuminating.



not really, mostly becue any MMO hummor is lost on me and my hatred of the subject...

how ever we are compairing like things here...Person A likes canon...Person A knows more then the avrager person on X things...where X is atleast 3. His problems with canon only accure in games with B (witch is one of X).

Now if this was just my group, fine, but again I spent years thinking it was just us and human nature...then I herd others had the same problem. I thought we were the minority so I said little. I just moved on. I ran more homebrew, and bought next to no realms stuff... More years went on and I heard more and more of the same problem. Finaly WotC fixed the world in such away that over night our complaints went almost away...
I have since seen and herd more people happy with the realms.

Then people started to compair eberon and Realms...guess what? the setting with less canon, and NO CANON NOVELS had less of the issue. (i will not say none of the issue becuse again your human nature theory does hold some water...




Now I can looking back see where it all went wrong. The Novels. I c an read all the RPG books I want and still not 'get' why some people think the new mystra (called midnight when this argument accures nomraly) should be thinking like an adventurer not a god...
Or why the "Sage" should ever be a combatant...
Or why the chosen are so powerful....
or why any of a thousand things.

You say eberon might get so bad, and it might, but not as it is now. Right now we have a snapshot of the world up to 997...998...999...um what ever year it is. We have some non canon (and labled as such) novels, and some adventures.

now I will ask my roommate in the morning, but some one here probly knows. Starting from grey box #1 and running up to the day mystra died how many years have canonical events?  ((((My guess is 10 or so)))

If they follow the trend and leave eberon at day 1, now it is yours to play with, I doubt it will ever be a problem.




Imagin a FR where no novels are cannon by defualt, where the time line has jumped less then 2 years in the last 20. It would be a major start.

I would also tone down the deus ex macnia NPCs. Since most games never reatch level 20, and few go above (although it is always the best that do  )
imagin elminster, the 7 sisters, and black staff all in the 13-18 range for levels...and not optimized at that. SO a PC at level 12 or 13 could be there equals, great heros saving the realm...



[sblock=new 3e chosen]
Elminster Wizard 3/ Cleric 3/ Fighter 2/ Rogue 3/ Mystic theurge 6/ Lore master 2   wiz caster level 11, cleric cast level 9

Black staff  Wizard 8/ Lore master 6/ Archmage 2...16th level caster

Symbol Wiz 3/ Sorcer 5/ Ult magus 7  10th level caster sorcer 10th wizard

now give each of them the spell fire feat, and god blessed/chosen powers more in line with what a PC can match...I think the spell imunity was a good idea, but not the COn boost or spell lie abilites... [/sblock]

now you might ask what about the bad guys... well bring them down a little, but not as much...then expalin in the setting that evil doesn't work togatehr well (Cult of the dragon, they, beholders, zents) all have big bad guys that could level any one of these guys, but not all of them. Good works togather so evil is held in check...

now when the rare PC gets to  Wiz 3 /Master spec 8/ Lore master 4/ Archmage 5  (20th level) they CAN do what the NPCs can not, take the fight to the bad guys...one on one...well more like 5 on 1+minons


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 7, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> The issue is that Forgotten Realms, for better or for worse, is the flagship setting of the D&D brand. It is the flagship setting by default, not by design, as if FR isn't the flagship setting, certainly nothing is. The issue with this is that there shouldn't be this level of conflict or baggage with the flagship setting of D&D.




You knw the fact that we have LFR more or less makes it the flagsip, allbe it unofficaly...and I will stand by my guess that 3e and 2e could not have had such a huge success with LFR as 4e is becuse of the retooling/timejump/massive purge of the problems...


----------



## Hussar (Jul 7, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Ok, back to gaming.   How do folks feel about multi-media productions, such as the Pool(s) of Radiance adventure, computer game, and Novel?   In a sense, it was a way to have canon, yet somewhat flexible and blended?  The same applies to Curse of the Azure Bonds and the Myth Drannon follow-ups.
> 
> I think that shows how beneficial developing a canon can be, and how interesting it can be to adapt the same things to different needs  yet retain their familiarity.
> 
> And thought I've never played them, how do folks feel about the canon characters in the Baldur's Gate games?  Were they faithfully represented and did they contribute to the game?




I thought the characters in Baldurs Gate became canon after the game was released.  The whole Child of Bhaal thing became part of FR canon.  Or do you mean the inclusion of FR canon in the game?  The thing is, you couldn't do anything about 99% of the canon that was introduced into the Baldur's Gate game because the program wouldn't let you change things.

For example, I couldn't burn down Baldur's Gate, even if I wanted to.  I couldn't even build a house.  Nothing my group could do actually had any real effect on the FR setting.  Most of the FR canon that was introduced was done so in such a way that it was just window dressing.

That's obviously not going to work in a tabletop game.

Again, I have zero problems with setting canon.  If I want to play in FR, I should have a basic working knowledge of the setting.  Of course.  And I think everyone agrees on this point.

Where the issue lies is when I want to change a point of canon that the player disagrees with.  Primal has twice in this thread talked about exactly that.  That the DM should not be allowed to make changes to canon that the players do not approve of.  Bumbles, you yourself have said that you would not play in a game where the DM has made changes to canon that you did not approve of.  Or that you would be very disappointed in a game that did the same.

This is the problem in a nutshell.  How can you balance the two issues?  If I want to put the Temple of Elemental Evil in FR, it shouldn't be a huge deal.  I change some proper nouns and maybe rework some elements and it's not too hard.  TOEE is a very generic adventure that really isn't that hard to plunk down in any setting.

Yet, in this thread, I'm being told that I should not do so.  That if I wanted to do this, I have to do lots and lots of work to make it fit.  This is certainly not enticing me to play FR.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 7, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> I'm sorry, but I have to call this a strawman here.




It's an analogy.  Not a strawman.  It's mean to illustrate what I mean so that we can understand each other more clearly, rather than to advance an argument.

Please examine it under those terms, thank you.  See if it helps you better to look it like that.  If it doesn't, then please tell me what you think I can do instead, since I don't think you understood what I said, and I would really like to be sure that you understand me clearly.



> You are still dismissing of the possibility that people may have real issues.




Do you realize that it seems to me that you're dismissing the possibility that people may be the real issue?  

I'm willing to say that there may be some real issues with some settings, but in the absence of a specific issue to discuss, I decline to assume it's an issue intrinsic to the setting as opposed to an issue of preference regarding the person.  In this case, I see the issue as being that of adhering to canon such as it is, while difficult is not one I would consider to be an issue with the setting, any more than it's an issue with any other setting.  That it may be difficult, is itself, an issue intrinsic to all developed settings where players may have expectations that exceed the GM's abilities to present.  As I said in a prior posting, if your game has any connection to reality, somebody might well argue with it.  This has been my experience, coming from cases involving the color of carrots and minor details of two short stories that were corrected because I got them backwards, and they weren't internally consistent.   To me, it seems you think that the Realms is somehow exceptional in the problems of remaining canonical, whereas I see it as nothing more than the expected trend I see all the time.   That's my experience.  Has yours been different?

Anyway, I go over that again, when I do want to ask this:

Are you willing to say that some people's issues may just be a matter of preference, and that it may simply not be possible to reconcile them, let alone desirable, that the source of the conflict as it were, may not be in the thing being conflicted over, but the persons having the conflict?



> No, I'm saying that the reason for the conflict is irrelevant.




That's what I'm saying, at least in regards to the game causing it.  



> Conflict is conflict. I could use FR and have conflict, or I could play something else and not have conflict. Not having conflict is better than conflict. The Forgotten Realms isn't god's gift to D&D, and putting in effort to overcome this conflict should be a choice, *not an expecation*. I don't owe it to FR to get over my issues.




I see nothing I disagree with here.  Choice is good.  Yet your prior words seem to declare the choice of choosing the canon to be less than desirable.

That is why I prefer to address the problem as one of personal interaction, as opposed to a flaw in the Realms.



> This isn't rocket science.




Indeed.  Rocket Science is in concrete terms.  This is philosophy, which is considerably more subjective to being variably defined.  

(Quantum Mechanics I leave for another day.  )



> The issue is that Forgotten Realms, for better or for worse, is the flagship setting of the D&D brand. It is the flagship setting by default, not by design, as if FR isn't the flagship setting, certainly nothing is. The issue with this is that there shouldn't be this level of conflict or baggage with the flagship setting of D&D.




That seems to be a different tact than what we've discussing before now.  Would you prefer to discuss it in its own thread or continue it here?  I would prefer to break it out on its own, since I don't even agree with the premise as of now.

I'm declining further response till I see your preferences.   Apologies in advance for being so long-winded.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 7, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> yes, but when patterns are seen by people who have had no other communcation before...well then there might be something there...




Or there might not, if you're simply ignoring or not experiencing such behavior even though it happens.  It might be easier to point out if I were somehow able to stand over you and watch everything you've done, and show you the examples, but as I said before, that's simply not feasible.

All I can suggest if you try looking around a bit.  I *know* that I *cannot* make you perceive something if you don't see it for yourself.



> what??? I have no idea what you just said..




"with this, therefore because of this"

To put it another way, correlation does not imply (let alone prove) causation.

Just because you only see it happening with the Realms doesn't mean it's happening because of the Realms.  I think it just happens because some people like consistency, and the more sources you have the more consistency you can have.

As such, I believe the first issue is to learn to deal with those concerns from the person, as it can and does pop up in unexpected ways.



> not really, mostly becue any MMO hummor is lost on me and my hatred of the subject...




I can't help you with that then, as I can't do anything when your perceptions are tainted by your emotions.  It wasn't about MMO humor though.  It was about people's expectations of acceptable behavior.



> (i will not say none of the issue becuse again your human nature theory does hold some water...




Well, you could have said this earlier.  Might have helped spare us some of the discussion. 

Me, believe it or not, I'm not saying that there's nothing involving the Realms that serves to provide issues, I just don't see it as an issue unique to the Realms, but really applicable to any gaming.  You could forget, be wrong, or be mistaken about anything in the game, or make a change that's not acceptable to a player at any time.   About all you can say about the Realms is that it has a lot to go through.  Which may lead to some people being more understanding, not less.

I know I've had a problem with a GM changing something in a corebook.  Not a supplement, but a corebook.  It wasn't even a D&D game.  It made me walk.  Sometimes it happens.  A minimum of books won't stop it.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 7, 2009)

Hussar said:


> I thought the characters in Baldurs Gate became canon after the game was released.  The whole Child of Bhaal thing became part of FR canon.  Or do you mean the inclusion of FR canon in the game?




I meant the inclusion of canon characters such as Drizzt, Elminster and Cadderly.  Do you think they were faithful representations that added to the game?



> The thing is, you couldn't do anything about 99% of the canon that was introduced into the Baldur's Gate game because the program wouldn't let you change things.




The limitations of a computer game, and the problems of creating sequels when you've got multiple possible endings are something I've noticed before, but let's not digress into that.  They're different from Tabletop versions.

But that's why I suggested the older Gold Box games, which unlike Baldur's Gate, exist in all three forms, not just two.



> Where the issue lies is when I want to change a point of canon that the player disagrees with.




Indeed, that is the crux of the issue.   The disagreement, not the scope.  People disagree.  I expect that.  Sometimes you can work it out, sometimes you can't.   It's rarely the thing itself that's causing the conflict though.



> Primal has twice in this thread talked about exactly that.  That the DM should not be allowed to make changes to canon that the players do not approve of.  Bumbles, you yourself have said that you would not play in a game where the DM has made changes to canon that you did not approve of.  Or that you would be very disappointed in a game that did the same.




I'm not sure what posts of mine, you're talking about in particular, and I don't feel like digging through them again, so if you don't mind, I'll state my position anew.  If this conflicts with what you think I've said, please reply to those things so that I can address any conflict you may perceive, or otherwise, take my words as they are:

I reserve the right to enjoy whatever game I'm playing.  I can appreciate a good alternate history, I can appreciate a faithful attempt at canon.   Do it badly, ignore it completely?  I will probably go.  What's badly?   I'm not prepared to say in meaningful terms, as I don't believe I can articulate it even as well as Goldilocks did with the porridge of the bears.   Best I can say is like this:

Radical, wholesale changes that make no sense to me?  I'd probably go.

Don't like Elminster so you never use him??  Fine.  Have him dead in a beard shaving accident?  Whatever, he's not one of my sacred cows to have in a game.  Have him evil?  I may think your game is trite, but I might give it a try.  I may walk out though, since I might not find it interesting.

Give me a long tirade on how you detest Elmonster and the other NPCs of the setting?  Well, then that's you who has convinced me not to play with you because I just don't find that sort of thing conducive to a good game.  Get a correction as to something not being how it was in the game, and get upset, using the spontaneous combustion tables?   Bye!

Mostly it will be more about how you handle things than any idea I have for how things are supposed to be.  

Which may not be the answer you're looking for, but it's how I roll.  I also won't play with you if you smoke or drink alcoholic beverages at games, stay longer than I plan for, or have a romantic relationship between one or more players.  But that's a subject for another thread, which I should start...



> This is the problem in a nutshell.  How can you balance the two issues?




Maybe you can, maybe you can't.



> Yet, in this thread, I'm being told that I should not do so. That if I wanted to do this, I have to do lots and lots of work to make it fit.




Not by me.  I could care less. If anything I've said has given you some other impression, then I'm sorry if I was unclear, but while I would have some concerns, I'd at least let you try it.  It may develop that you don't do it in a way that I find acceptable, and I'll tell you.  You may be willing to make changes.  You may not.  That may or may not be acceptable to me.  I may walk.  I may not.  



> This is certainly not enticing me to play FR.




I wasn't trying.  Not my goal.  I don't get paid for copies sold of any of it.  I don't even see it likely we'll ever game together anyway.  

Hell, I don't even enjoy selling people on my games.   Or people trying to sell me on theirs.


----------



## S'mon (Jul 7, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Wow, and I got absolutely hammered for saying that DM's should not allow their personal pet peeves to limit player choice...




Well, you actually said we were "asshats"


----------



## S'mon (Jul 7, 2009)

Re computer games & canon - I haven't played the old 1e-2e FR games.  I played Neverwinter Nights and I remember being vaguely surprised that Luskan in the game didn't seem anything like Luskan in some Driz'zt/Icewind Dale book I'd read.  I think at the time I'd have preferred 'canon adherence', now I'm more of the mind that the needs of the game outweigh the needs of canon.  It's all just ideas in a fictional setting - and not a 'tight' setting like Te'Kumel; FR is basically a generic fantasy sandbox, why not build your own sandcastles.


----------



## S'mon (Jul 7, 2009)

BTW reading through this thread again I have been feeling that strong urge I sometimes get to run an FR game, and this thread has given me some good ideas:

Grey Box only
Pay no attention to canon
1357 DR or maybe earlier

And most importantly: Don't use any official ruleset, because I don't want to be constrained by "NPC stat canon", eg unkillable Chosen.  4e might work for a tabletop game, but I like the idea of using Labyrinth Lord (B/X clone), especially for a PBP.  That way I could use Elminster, he could be a powerful Wizard with 9th level spells, but no twink-magic, he'd still be vulnerable, making the villains a credible threat.  Same for the Simbul etc - I could use them as say 19th level M-Us, capable of threatening Thay, but still vulnerable enough for mid-level PCs to be useful.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Jul 7, 2009)

Thats sounds like an interesting game! Similar to my current Moonsea campaign, though i integrate from the books what i like, follow Pool of Radiance loosely, and use 4e.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 7, 2009)

S'mon said:


> Grey Box only
> Pay no attention to canon
> 1357 DR or maybe earlier



Careful!  I suggested that and got my competency as a DM, my relationship with my players, my capacity for empathy, my reading comprehension, and my work ethic questioned. 

-O


----------



## JeffB (Jul 7, 2009)

Finally found myself a copy of the OGB contents complete and in good shape (I sold mine sveral years back) and they are on the way. The  4E FRCG is next up- It seems to be the modern equivalent.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 7, 2009)

S'mon said:


> Re computer games & canon - I haven't played the old 1e-2e FR games.  I played Neverwinter Nights and I remember being vaguely surprised that Luskan in the game didn't seem anything like Luskan in some Driz'zt/Icewind Dale book I'd read.  I think at the time I'd have preferred 'canon adherence', now I'm more of the mind that the needs of the game outweigh the needs of canon.




Ok, so how was Luskan not like the Luskan of the book you read?  I've never played Neverwinter Nights myself, so I don't know what it's like in Luskan either.  

(And sigh, it seems none of us have any commonality in game experiences)



> It's all just ideas in a fictional setting - and not a 'tight' setting like Te'Kumel; FR is basically a generic fantasy sandbox, why not build your own sandcastles.




Some people don't like how sandcastles wash away, and prefer the use of bricks or stone.  Even sticks.   As long as no Big Bad Wolf's come by anyway...


----------



## jdrakeh (Jul 7, 2009)

S'mon said:


> BTW reading through this thread again I have been feeling that strong urge I sometimes get to run an FR game, and this thread has given me some good ideas:
> 
> Grey Box only
> Pay no attention to canon
> ...




At this point, that's the only kind of FR campaign I would play in, though I might make some exceptions for FR1, FR2, FR3, FR5, and FR6 (or maybe just FR1 and FR6, each of which could theoretically serve as its own self-contained setting).


----------



## Hussar (Jul 7, 2009)

S'mon, that's not fair and you know it.  I most certainly did not call you or anyone else an asshat.  

But it is funny that you would absolutely hammer me on the other issue, of "player entitlement" yet give FR canon lawyers the pass.  Do you think that it is perfectly acceptable for a player to tell the DM, "No, you're doing it wrong"?

Because, for me, that's what it comes down to.  Bumbles, whether you like it or not, that's what you are saying.  You are telling the DM that he has changed something about the setting that you do not personally like and that is unnacceptable.  Either the DM changes the element back, or you refuse to play.

Does it really matter where you draw the line?  You might think your criteria are perfectly reasonable (and I do too for that matter - I agree that your criteria are perfectly reasonable) but, I've been told over and over again on these boards, by people in this thread no less, that the DM has absolute authority over his campaign.  That a DM should NEVER allow player wishes or preferences to over ride his or her own.

So, S'mon, back to you, which is it?  Should the DM bow to the player or not?  Is the DM, as you have so eloquently argued in the past, the absolute master of the campaign or not?  If the DM can say, "No X in my campaign", does that include setting canon as well?  If not why not?  Why is it ok for the DM to absolutely over rule a player in one part of the setting (I don't like X so no X in my campaign) and not in another?


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 7, 2009)

S'mon said:


> Re computer games & canon - I haven't played the old 1e-2e FR games.  I played Neverwinter Nights and I remember being vaguely surprised that Luskan in the game didn't seem anything like Luskan in some Driz'zt/Icewind Dale book I'd read.  I think at the time I'd have preferred 'canon adherence', now I'm more of the mind that the needs of the game outweigh the needs of canon.  It's all just ideas in a fictional setting - and not a 'tight' setting like Te'Kumel; FR is basically a generic fantasy sandbox, why not build your own sandcastles.




Looking back on the 1e-2e FR videogames, some of the canon bits were hysterical. In Curse of the Azure Bonds, both Fzoul Chembryl and Finder Wyvernspur died during the course of the game.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 7, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Do you think that it is perfectly acceptable for a player to tell the DM, "No, you're doing it wrong"?




Isn't it?   In principle, if not in specific?  Or do players have to accept that a DM is always right, and not to be questioned?   I know I don't.  I can question a decision.  I can walk out and leave.   This may be unfair of me, or it may be the best decision to avoid a confrontation over something that can't be resolved.

I do the same for players too.  There may be times where I'm being questioned, and it's a good thing, and times where it's a bad thing.  It happens both ways.



> Because, for me, that's what it comes down to.  Bumbles, whether you like it or not, that's what you are saying.




Indeed, that is a basically accurate representation of my position though it may not be be completely accurate as to how I perceive it, mind you.



> You are telling the DM that he has changed something about the setting that you do not personally like and that is unnacceptable.  Either the DM changes the element back, or you refuse to play.




Is there something wrong with saying "I won't enjoy this" when confronted when something I won't enjoy?  That doesn't seem fair to me, yet it seems to be implied.  



> Does it really matter where you draw the line?




Absolutely.  Otherwise, I feel you're basically saying I'm not able to form a reasonably opinion, and it seems that you think that I should just obey the mantra of the "DM is Always Right" .   The DM can be in the right.  The Player(s) can be in the right.  Accordingly, the where does matter.   They could even both be in the right or the wrong.  



> You might think your criteria are perfectly reasonable (and I do too for that matter - I agree that your criteria are perfectly reasonable) but, I've been told over and over again on these boards, by people in this thread no less, that the DM has absolute authority over his campaign.




Well, in a sense, they do.  This is met by the Players having absolute authority of where they play.  It's a case of Unstoppable Force meets Immovable Object.



> That a DM should NEVER allow player wishes or preferences to over ride his or her own.




A DM who takes that absolute position is one who I will probably not play with for long.  Smart DMs know when they can yield one preference or wish in order to improve the game.



> Why is it ok for the DM to absolutely over rule a player in one part of the setting (I don't like X so no X in my campaign) and not in another?




Why is it ok for me to go into a hamburger shop and say "Hold the Ketchup" when I order a burger, and not ok for me to ask for a Pizza*? 

Because the two things are different, and where you draw the line matters.

*Of course, there are places where they can serve me a pizza, but let's not tear this analogy into pieces, it's a simplification by necessity, and not something to argue over.  If it helps you understand my position better, great, if not, tell me what will.


----------



## Wormwood (Jul 7, 2009)

S'mon said:


> Grey Box only
> Pay no attention to canon
> 1357 DR or maybe earlier




I made it perfectly clear to my (4e) group that I would only ever run a Realms game under those _exact _conditions.

The one player who reads the novels and has a massive collection of 1e/2e FR splats was _horrified _at the concept, effectively ending the discussion.

So---no Realms for them, I guess.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 7, 2009)

Primal said:


> No, I'm saying that* if *you have *veteran FR players (or even DMs)* sitting at your table,* it might be wise to run a game in one of the undeveloped areas* -- just as it would be wise to do that *with a group of Eberron fans who know more about Eberron that you -- the DM -- do*. *Especially if you know they're "diehard" fans*.



So in other words, I should place my campaign and adventures in...

The Serpent Hills (east of the High Moor)
The Wood of Sharp Teeth
The Desertedge Mountains (outside the Dales), and
The Nation of Sembia

These will not have any modules or sourcebooks set in them, and are left solely for the DM to develop, without fear of contradiction or invalidation.

...Right?

-O


----------



## Primal (Jul 8, 2009)

wingsandsword said:


> I wouldn't walk out, but it would sure as heck raise my eyebrows.
> 
> Personally, I wouldn't think that inserting Hommlet wouldn't be that bad, it would not seriously break Realms canon to insert one extra little village someplace, especially if adapted slightly to the Realms (like putting it in Cormyr and having a Purple Dragon Knight lead the town guard, making the local temples be to Ilmater or Torm instead of St. Cuthbert and so on).
> 
> ...




Oh, I'd be fine with an expeditionary party of Vecna's followers that have come through a portal... however, the DM in question did just plug the ToEE into the middle of the Savage Frontier without any "Realmsification" process (too much work). Therefore, all the Greyhawk lore had "always been part of FR" (including deities). The campaign didn't last long, and I had a hard time swallowing all that.

I agree that ToEE would fit many areas in FR, and would not ever require a lot of modifications (most of the religions and organizations featured in it have suitable FR counterparts). I would probably place it near the Battle of Bones, Reaching Woods, in the North, or the Moonsea area. And to give two examples, Jalanthar or Qheldin's Mask could be used with the Hommlet lore (and maps) pretty easily, as both are small settlements and there's very little official info published about them.

As for Waterdeep, I remember a DM who told me he had replaced it with a pirate city from one of the 'Fighting Fantasy' (I think it was one of them?) books... I really wanted to ask him why Luskan didn't work for him, but decided not to, as I didn't play in the campaign.


----------



## Primal (Jul 8, 2009)

Obryn said:


> So in other words, I should place my campaign and adventures in...
> 
> The Serpent Hills (east of the High Moor)
> The Wood of Sharp Teeth
> ...




Or maybe in one of the small settlements in the Western Heartlands (there are many small settlements there)? Or in the Vast? Or the Border Kingdoms, which have been detailed in 'Power of Faerun' and as free articled on the WoTC site? Those are just quick examples, and there are even whole continents that have not been touched in official Realmslore, if you want to be creative.

I'm not sure why people persist that this is solely a FR-related issue; as I mentioned, I'm sure Eberron veterans would gripe about my lack of canon lore. If you're expecting to make major changes (such as replacing a city or a while kingdom with your own version, or blowing something up, or introducing new deities), I'm quite sure you'd have a problem with fans of *ANY* setting. Even if you're only using a single campaign book, and running the game for a group with similar exposure to official lore, I doubt it would any different if you decide to run your campaign in the same place their previous DM ran several campaigns in -- unless they're not interested in any names or places or maps, you'll likely bump into this very same issue sooner or later ("But I thought it was Lord Blackhand who ruled here? That's what the previous DM said, and there should be no wizards or clerics in this town! And the inn was called 'Majestic Magic-user'!"). 

I usually try to discuss this with the players, if I don't know them; especially if I'm running my first campaign in a setting (and I usually go for small and remote border settlements). Talking usually always helps, just as it helps to communicate which sort of campaign I want to run and which sort of campaign and with which sort of characters they want to play in. 

As I said, not all changes are "bad". At the moment I'm playing in a heavily-modified AoW adventure path set in FR; it's so different (even from the FR conversion notes) and it's hard to recognise. And the DM has made many major changes to canon lore to make it all better fit the campaign (including huge revisions to the history of the Savage Frontier, Netheril and major religions). And it *does* fit the campaign backstory so much better than official lore (and as another DM myself, I'm aware of the number and scope of changes), which is why I don't mind it at all; I might not endorse those changes as the "new lore" in my own campaigns, but they fit that one perfectly. In my Pathfinder playtest campaign I replaced an official town map with the Fallcrest map from the WoTC site, and everyone is okay with that, because the original is... well, I guess it's okay if you're into TSR-era CRPG city maps. Likewise, I wanted to use Kaorti and other Far Realm-related monsters there, so I rewrote centuries of official history for the kingdom. 

What I'm trying to say is that it's always best to discuss which sort of "expertise" the players have on the setting, and where they may have played. Then, do some research on the area from those sources you have available, and pick what you like and modify/write the rest. That way you avoid a lot of the issues with players who have more knowledge and experience about the setting (or, at least certain areas) than you do. What do they want? Do they regularly take notes, and enjoy details? How do you prefer to run your games, and how much do you generally use descriptions or drop names? And so on.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 8, 2009)

I think you missed my semi-sarcastic point. 

Those were the areas firewalled off in the 1e setting, reserved for DMs, which were later ... um ... detailed.  Particularly Sembia.

-O


----------



## Primal (Jul 8, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> and what I am saying is if you want people to 'get into' the realms you need to stop all of that way of thinking...or it will be a dead setting. Luckly WotC thought of that and bang 100 year jump.
> 
> You see your whole post screams "GO over there adults play in this section"




Alright, maybe I was a bit too snarky with underlining and all, but I've tried to get my point across several times and it feels frustrating when we're all apparently miscommunicating. Again, I don't think it's any different from Eberron, Greyhawk, Planescape, Mystara, Dragonlance, etcetera; diehard fans are diehard fans, regardless of the setting. Yes, they did what they did (and I'll not dwell on that) with 4E FR, but for some reason they thought 15+ books and dozens of internet articles did not require the same with Eberron (and using the line of thought usually applied to FR, someone could also ask if he's supposed to buy and read them all to "properly" run Eberron? Because that's a lot of pages, too.). Yet, do I actually need to read more than ECG to run a campaign there, at least in some less-detailed area? If not, why can't you do that with 3E FR?

I'm not so sure if WoTC is happy with the sales of 4E FR... and whether they're happy with the decisions they made. I doubt it. So maybe it will end up a "dead setting" anyway.


----------



## Primal (Jul 8, 2009)

Obryn said:


> I think you missed my semi-sarcastic point.
> 
> Those were the areas firewalled off in the 1e setting, reserved for DMs, which were later ... um ... detailed.  Particularly Sembia.
> 
> -O




I did, but replied anyway (it was also a sort of a "generic" reply, too). Not all of Sembia is detailed... you could run a campaign set in Mulhessen or Kulta, for example. And I think 3E FRCS has a very good generic "overview" on Sembia.


----------



## S'mon (Jul 8, 2009)

Hussar said:


> But it is funny that you would absolutely hammer me on the other issue, of "player entitlement" yet give FR canon lawyers the pass.




I don't, I'm on the anti-canon-lawyer side, here.  Maybe I'm just too polite.  

I'm in favour of players being open-minded and being willing to at least try a game, see if they like it.  Eg I had a lower opinion of FR until I played an FR game that used no canon NPCs, it helped me see the potentialities of the setting.  Conversely I don't expect GMs to be open-minded re player requests.

For me, best practice is:

1. GMs - run what excites you.  Don't be afraid to say no.
2. Players - try it, you might like it.

Obviously if a player has tried and disliked something already, they don't have to keep putting their toe in the fire.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Jul 9, 2009)

Primal said:


> Yes, they did what they did (and I'll not dwell on that) with 4E FR, but for some reason they thought 15+ books and dozens of internet articles did not require the same with Eberron (and using the line of thought usually applied to FR, someone could also ask if he's supposed to buy and read them all to "properly" run Eberron? Because that's a lot of pages, too.). Yet, do I actually need to read more than ECG to run a campaign there, at least in some less-detailed area? If not, why can't you do that with 3E FR?



For the whole Eberron vs. the Realms thing...

The big difference is that all the novels are officially nan-canonical, and that the stories of the novels are all explicitly supposed to not mess with the setting. The authors are forbidden from doing things like restarting the Last War and wiping out Aundair. I'm not sure how well the novels stick to the idea (I never read any of them), but that is nonetheless the way the novels were pitched to the fanbase back when Eberron was first released. In a sense, Eberron is a setting that is rooted in a particular point in time, which is one of the big reasons there was a big fan outcry against the idea of moving forward with the timeline in the transition to 4E.

Also, the way things are phrased in the Eberron setting book itself is designed to make the setting as open and flexible as possible, so that there are more mysteries than hard answers, and some mysteries that were designed to never be answered. There was a lot of supplemental material afterwards, but I personally have always considered it to be totally optional, and not all that necessary for getting in to the heart of the setting (especially since some of it gives more detail than it should).

Finally, the most important reason a lot of these things I just mentioned were done is to explicitly make Eberron different than the Forgotten Realms. The people at WotC were quite open about acknowledging that the path they were taking with Eberron was deliberately different than the way they built the Realms around canon, partly because there was such a large part of the D&D fanbase that felt like it was too hard to get into the Realms, and WotC wanted to sell a setting that _was_ easier to get into.

I guess, it can be said that if any canon lawyers exist for Eberron, it is despite the best efforts of the setting, and their existence runs contrary to some of the goals of the setting itself. What is more, there are _extremely important_ areas of the setting where no amount of canon lawyering will affect the DM's campaign, since the canon simply doesn't exist. The same can't be said of the Forgotten Realms, which is why there is a perceived problem.


----------



## JeffB (Jul 9, 2009)

Well having got my OGB materials today and reading through a good chunk of them again after many years, It sure is apparent that the FR of 1987 was  a fantastic DM toolkit. One thing I was reminded of is the sheer SIZE of the continent- it's HUGE - before the Novels and computer games and deluge of 2E Complete Handbook of Western Sembia's Mage's Undershorts type books there was a TON of room for the DM to play with. And plenty of "mystery/make it up yourself" areas.

On the flip-side you can see where the Realms set itself up as the "detailed to death/PC's are not terribly important in the grand scheme of things" Campaign Setting. The  books are chock full of NPC's & Gods. Obviously many are meant as foils or helpers to the PC's, but it gave me a very bad feeling reading through them- a harbinger of doom so to speak.  The Gods are even mentioned as bing very active in the world, and I think that's always been a big issue- these Gods are portrayed/written as bigger badder NPCs, when THAT info and those kinds of stories (in RPG products) should be minimal,and the PLOTS AND ACTIONS OF THE CHURCHES AND FAITHFUL are far more important for a RPG supplement's utility. The NPCs of course have the same issue, though in less grand fashion. I DONT CARE ABOUT SEMMEMOM's/MANSHOONS/FZOULS PERSONAL MANNERISMS & CHOICE OF CLOTHING- but I DO care about the plots they are hatching.

If you can ignore all that BS about the NPCs/Gods being super characters- the rest of the world makeup/detail and potential is really fantastic.


----------



## Primal (Jul 9, 2009)

TwinBahamut said:


> For the whole Eberron vs. the Realms thing...
> 
> The big difference is that all the novels are officially nan-canonical, and that the stories of the novels are all explicitly supposed to not mess with the setting. The authors are forbidden from doing things like restarting the Last War and wiping out Aundair. I'm not sure how well the novels stick to the idea (I never read any of them), but that is nonetheless the way the novels were pitched to the fanbase back when Eberron was first released. In a sense, Eberron is a setting that is rooted in a particular point in time, which is one of the big reasons there was a big fan outcry against the idea of moving forward with the timeline in the transition to 4E.
> 
> ...




I'm not saying that Eberron is as detailed as FR, but I do remember reading about local foods and clothing and habits and whatnot (in 'Five Kingdoms'?). And religions (someone mentioned bits and pieces being published in almost every accessory) and some areas *are* quite detailed (Sharn and Stormreach, for example). Now, I personally know some Eberron fanatics who would scoff at me for trying to run Eberron with one or two books only, and they'd more than likely correct me about "errors" in details. And woe unto me if I tried to deliberately change the canon...

Every setting has its own diehard fanatics, just as every game has its rules lawyers (well, except for narrativist indie RPGs, perhaps). FR may be more detailed than others, but I see this issue being related to player personality and mindset rather than anything else.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 9, 2009)

Primal said:


> I'm not saying that Eberron is as detailed as FR, but I do remember reading about local foods and clothing and habits and whatnot (in 'Five Kingdoms'?). And religions (someone mentioned bits and pieces being published in almost every accessory) and some areas *are* quite detailed (Sharn and Stormreach, for example).




let me show you the diffrence...one is detailed in one of like 10 rpg books, each has about 200 pages...

now try to tell me there are not infinit more realms???






> Now, I personally know some Eberron fanatics who would scoff at me for trying to run Eberron with one or two books only, and they'd more than likely correct me about "errors" in details. And woe unto me if I tried to deliberately change the canon...




as long as that group stays a minority...not a problem...everyone know a jerk or two...but the realms consitnantly has had these problems...and to make it worse, these cannon lawyers and nit pickers have not only a dozen or 2 dozen supplments (witch in and of itself would be hard for a dm), but over a 100 suplments spread through 3 edtions, and atleast 100 novels...



> Every setting has its own diehard fanatics, just as every game has its rules lawyers (well, except for narrativist indie RPGs, perhaps). FR may be more detailed than others, but I see this issue being related to player personality and mindset rather than anything else.





then why is there a spike in FR canon lawyers over any and all other settings?????

at some point you have to stop blameing it on "well people are jerks" becuse those same peopls aren't like this with other settings...and people have less and less problems with other setting...


as I said before human nature plays a part...but you guys gotta meet me half way here...the game was designed badly...



NOTE: by badly I don't mean like it itself is bad, I like the setting, but too many people run into the "I can't run this" groups...witch effects sales as more and more people take the advice from this very thread "If you group doesn't do this well play another setting" witch was killing the realms...becuse the more DMS that felt that way were more lost sales...


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 9, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> then why is there a spike in FR canon lawyers over any and all other settings?????




It's got little to do with the setting itself.  I see it as related to more people playing it, more people reading the novels and other books.  



> at some point you have to stop blameing it on "well people are jerks" becuse those same peopls aren't like this with other settings...and people have less and less problems with other setting...




For the first, a person can be demanding on authenticity on one subject, but ignorant enough of others that they don't notice the flaws.  Or they can even just not care, despite knowing better.   For the second, I don't agree with that at all, as I've had the problems with other settings that had nothing to do with the Realms, that were far less detailed than the Realms.  Like one single campaign book.  It's just as hard to resolve when it crops up there.

If anything, people might even be more forgiving if you don't know the dozen books versus the one.



> as I said before human nature plays a part...but you guys gotta meet me half way here...the game was designed badly...




At most, it's a problem of implementation, but I consider it an inevitable one, not one you can avoid effectively.  



> NOTE: by badly I don't mean like it itself is bad, I like the setting, but too many people run into the "I can't run this" groups...witch effects sales as more and more people take the advice from this very thread "If you group doesn't do this well play another setting" witch was killing the realms...becuse the more DMS that felt that way were more lost sales...




And how many people felt "Wow, they're making another book for me!  I'm so happy with that" ?   There are very few decisions that make everybody happy.  Just look at the folks who stuck with 3.5.  Or 2nd.  Or 1st.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Jul 9, 2009)

Its not important who is responsible for canon lawyerism - world development, book flooding, individual DMs and/or players, novels etc. The problem exists and has to be dealt with. The "run this as written or don´t run it" thought must be killed with fire. We need a return to the "choose what you like, scrap the rest" mindset. This  is (as always, IMHO) the only way to run a lore-heavy world like FR.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 9, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> It's got little to do with the setting itself.  I see it as related to more people playing it, more people reading the novels and other books.




I love the fac that you incest a problem witht he setting is everything but the settings fault...



> For the first, a person can be demanding on authenticity on one subject, but ignorant enough of others that they don't notice the flaws.  Or they can even just not care, despite knowing better.   For the second, I don't agree with that at all, as I've had the problems with other settings that had nothing to do with the Realms, that were far less detailed than the Realms.  Like one single campaign book.  It's just as hard to resolve when it crops up there.




really, then why at cons and on these boards do the FR out strip all the other complaints togather???



> At most, it's a problem of implementation, but I consider it an inevitable one, not one you can avoid effectively.




actualy it is easy to avoid...don't over load the canon, and don't stat out dozens (if not hundreds) of deus ex macina, mary sue, chosen NPCs.

again imagin a realms where no novel is canon...and no NPC is stated over the PHB level...or heck maybe only 1 or 2...





> And how many people felt "Wow, they're making another book for me!  I'm so happy with that" ?   There are very few decisions that make everybody happy.  Just look at the folks who stuck with 3.5.  Or 2nd.  Or 1st.




you do realize each book ADDed to the problem



Keefe the Thief said:


> The problem exists and has to be dealt with.



 You know that is the best line of this thread so far...




> The "run this as written or don´t run it" thought must be killed with fire. We need a return to the "choose what you like, scrap the rest" mindset. This  is (as always, IMHO) the only way to run a lore-heavy world like FR.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 9, 2009)

Keefe the Thief said:


> The "run this as written or don´t run it" thought must be killed with fire. We need a return to the "choose what you like, scrap the rest" mindset. This  is (as always, IMHO) the only way to run a lore-heavy world like FR.




Well, I prefer the "Don't argue about pettiness" solution, but since I've found people have different ideas about that, i'm not sure there's an actual solution to the problem.


----------



## Primal (Jul 9, 2009)

Keefe the Thief said:


> Its not important who is responsible for canon lawyerism - world development, book flooding, individual DMs and/or players, novels etc. The problem exists and has to be dealt with. The "run this as written or don´t run it" thought must be killed with fire. We need a return to the "choose what you like, scrap the rest" mindset. This  is (as always, IMHO) the only way to run a lore-heavy world like FR.




Well, that's exactly what I (and my friends) do, and I don't see why anyone else (especially if your group even doesn't have any real FR canon lawyers) couldn't do it. I read the relevant sources and pick what I like, while subtly changing whatever needs to be changed to benefit/improve some aspect of the campaign. If someone points out that I'm deviating from canon, I usually say that there's a logical reason for the change that he (and his character) is not aware of.


----------



## Uzzy (Jul 9, 2009)

> The "run this as written or don´t run it" thought must be killed with fire. We need a return to the "choose what you like, scrap the rest" mindset. This is (as always, IMHO) the only way to run a lore-heavy world like FR.




Good thing that the FRCS explicitly says that then, isn't it? On Page 297.

The novels being canon is irrelevant, by the way. What's important is that they don't change the setting in large ways. Arilyn Moonblade running around Waterdeep is fine. But whole nations changing, new nations being created, full scale wars etc (Known together as RSE's), that's where the problem lies. Guess what WoTC haven't changed?


----------



## Primal (Jul 9, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> let me show you the diffrence...one is detailed in one of like 10 rpg books, each has about 200 pages...
> 
> now try to tell me there are not infinit more realms???





 And for a new guy, that’s still over 2000 pages, right? Yet just like in Eberron, most of the stuff published in the Realms is very area-specific, so it does not matter so much; if you want to get the most out of your FR campaign, get the Volo’s Guide and the book from the FR1-16 series for the area you’re running in, plus possibly FR Adventures  (lots of city maps in it), Faiths & Avatars, GHoTR, Lords of Darkness, Magic of Faerun and the campaign setting. If you’re running in an area that was covered by a 3E book, you could purchase that, too (you won’t even need ‘Faiths and Pantheons’, because 90% of the contents is just republished lore from ‘Faiths & Avatars’). And that’s pretty much my list for the “best” sources for a detailed campaign set in the Realms (you could probably drop Lords of Darkness from that list, if you want to).




> as long as that group stays a minority...not a problem...everyone know a jerk or two...but the realms consitnantly has had these problems...and to make it worse, these cannon lawyers and nit pickers have not only a dozen or 2 dozen supplments (witch in and of itself would be hard for a dm), but over a 100 suplments spread through 3 edtions, and atleast 100 novels...





Where and who are these canon lawyers? In your group? I haven’t even read most of the novels, and I’m pretty sure I could hold my own against these ardent fanatics you talk about – or, at least offer logical reasons why things X, Y and Z are different from the canon books in my campaign. You don’t need a hundred books to run a game, because not even the worst fanatics would remember *everything* they’ve read.

 If your group has players (canon lawyers) who distract play with their smart remarks, try to discuss their behavior with them. If nothing seems to help use a canon NPC as a BBEG in your campaign… and then tell these players that he’s untouchable, because killing him would make your campaign non-canonical. You could also offer them the DM’s chair, since they’re so knowledgeable… then start asking very specific question about local affairs (gossip/rumours, architecture, geography, NPC names and looks and so on) and keep doing it for a while and see if the new DM can stay consistent with all that. I’m pretty sure that will drive the point home sooner or later, i.e. that it’s about the game and having fun, and not getting every detail 100% right all the time as they were presented in some post/article/novel that nobody else has read.

 Of course, if you don’t read the books (the campaign setting plus maybe the sources that have info on the area you selected), or set a game into an area which the players have previous exposure to and knowledge about (but you don’t), then it’s a different thing. For example, if you start a campaign in Silverymoon and don’t know who Alustriel is or I just plug Hollowfaust into Sharn’s place and call it ‘Sharn – The City of Vampires’, most fans (regardless of whether they’re actual canon lawyers or not) would probably do more than just raise their eyebrows. And can you blame anyone for that? 




> then why is there a spike in FR canon lawyers over any and all other settings?????
> 
> at some point you have to stop blameing it on "well people are jerks" becuse those same peopls aren't like this with other settings...and people have less and less problems with other setting...
> 
> as I said before human nature plays a part...but you guys gotta meet me half way here...the game was designed badly...





The game? You mean 4E? Oh, you meant the setting… (alright, enough sarcasm already). You have to remember that FR was TSR’s flagship product… of course they wanted to milk it for what it was worth, and put out products at an alarming rate (without any quality control, it seems). That, however, does not mean FR is a bad setting. Nor does it mean that the amount and depth of lore is automatically bad for the setting (I’m personally of the mind that more is always the merrier, because it means that I have more stuff to choose from and less to write). Wherever you wish to run your campaigns, it’s quite easy to identify the necessary sources for a “bare-bones” campaign… if you *want* to add more details (such as about archiculture, customs, festival or clothing) it’s there. I’m not sure how many players *actually* expect you to know or remember specific details, such as local festivals and delicacies in Marsember, by heart. Or the resident noble families. 

 I haven’t seen this “spike of canon lawyers” you talk about…




> NOTE: by badly I don't mean like it itself is bad, I like the setting, but too many people run into the "I can't run this" groups...witch effects sales as more and more people take the advice from this very thread "If you group doesn't do this well play another setting" witch was killing the realms...becuse the more DMS that felt that way were more lost sales...





I’m fairly sure (and this is, naturally, based on anecdotal evidence shown on Candlekeep.com and the WoTC boards) that 4E FR books didn’t sell nearly as well as WoTC anticipated, and I would be very surprised if 3E FRCS didn’t sell more copies. Of course, I cannot confirm it, but it’s a strong gut feeling that tells me so. And by getting rid of the depth of lore and details WoTC didn’t just (apparently) fail to garner a new customer base… I think they also lost the “old guard”, who thought these aspect of the setting was the reason to *love* it and buy the product. 

 And who has said that “if your group doesn’t do this well, play in another setting”? I don’t think anyone has said it so far.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 10, 2009)

Primal said:


> And for a new guy, that’s still over 2000 pages, right?




right...becuse when I say less is better, you have to set up a strawman and think I mean not addtional info...



> Yet just like in Eberron, most of the stuff published in the Realms is very area-specific, so it does not matter so much;



actualy, it leaves penty of room, even in the areas detailed so that this problem wont crop up...infact it was one of the selling points...



> if you want to get the most out of your FR campaign, get the Volo’s Guide and the book from the FR1-16 series for the area you’re running in, plus possibly FR Adventures  (lots of city maps in it), Faiths & Avatars, GHoTR, Lords of Darkness, Magic of Faerun and the campaign setting.




what is wrong with running a campign with just the main book??? you just suggected possible 16 mods, and 4 suplments...



> If you’re running in an area that was covered by a 3E book, you could purchase that, too (you won’t even need ‘Faiths and Pantheons’, because 90% of the contents is just republished lore from ‘Faiths & Avatars’). And that’s pretty much my list for the “best” sources for a detailed campaign set in the Realms (you could probably drop Lords of Darkness from that list, if you want to).



wow more books...yea that is always the answer...spend more time and money...why do you people all think the answer is to become what we hate...the canon 'experts'



> Where and who are these canon lawyers? In your group?



 I mentioned 4 in one of my posts a few pages back...if you look around the front page you will find a thread called "Mary sue I don't understand" that has a huge argument over this...



> I haven’t even read most of the novels, and I’m pretty sure I could hold my own against these ardent fanatics you talk about – or, at least offer logical reasons why things X, Y and Z are different from the canon books in my campaign. You don’t need a hundred books to run a game, because not even the worst fanatics would remember *everything* they’ve read.




wow, but you remember more then they do...how great you caan out think canon lawyers by knowing but loads of it...so still no answer...


as for:


> You don’t need a hundred books to run a game, because not even the worst fanatics would remember *everything* they’ve read



all he needs is to have read 1 novel, or acsessory more then you...and remember something from it...






> If your group has players (canon lawyers) who distract play with their smart remarks, try to discuss their behavior with them.



again with the idea it is just my group...again I did this, and they tried, but they couldn't hold back everything they knew, and it just didn't 'feel' like the realms...AND IT IS NOT AN UNHEARD OF PROBLEM...



> Of course, if you don’t read the books (the campaign setting plus maybe the sources that have info on the area you selected), or set a game into an area which the players have previous exposure to and knowledge about (but you don’t), then it’s a different thing.




there is no part of the setting I know more about then my roommate...he has every fr book. and even HE stoped running the realms...becuse of these same basic things...



> For example, if you start a campaign in Silverymoon and don’t know who Alustriel is



OK, now I am feed up with this sh-- I took a city name someone else in the thread talked about...and talked about a general plot idea. 

then when the god like untouchable npc chosen was there, I took my roommates base book to see if this info was provided...I found about 1/4 a page on the city...and guess what was not mentioned in the MAIN BOOK DESCRIBEING THIS CITY...didn't see fit to say 'she is a CR 28 archmage chosen...you would think something so important would be mentioned...or atleast say see pg XXX.




> or I just plug Hollowfaust into Sharn’s place and call it ‘Sharn – The City of Vampires’, most fans (regardless of whether they’re actual canon lawyers or not) would probably do more than just raise their eyebrows. And can you blame anyone for that?




WOW another strawman... the basic eberon book describes what sharn is...yu would CHOOSE to disregard this...




> That, however, does not mean FR is a bad setting.



notice you didn;t quote me saying the exact same??




> Wherever you wish to run your campaigns, it’s quite easy to identify the necessary sources for a “bare-bones” campaign…



you know the main book...



> if you *want* to add more details (such as about archiculture, customs, festival or clothing) it’s there. I’m not sure how many players *actually* expect you to know or remember specific details, such as local festivals and delicacies in Marsember, by heart. Or the resident noble families.




who are you talking about here??? noble families...local festivals, who ever said that was the problem???

lets recap here:

elminster...symbol...blackstaff...alustrial...thay...cult of dragon...these are the problems so far...at least by this thread...


I haven’t seen this “spike of canon lawyers” you talk about…

maybe you should take a look through this thread, the mary sue thread (until elminster was banned), the ebberon v fr thread...or go to the WotC thread history of the FR sub board. 





> I’m fairly sure (and this is, naturally, based on anecdotal evidence shown on Candlekeep.com and the WoTC boards) that 4E FR books didn’t sell nearly as well as WoTC anticipated,



WHAT!!!!???? I call bs, every bit of proof (mostly sercumstantial) points to the reverse...that is just out right lieing at this point...



> Of course, I cannot confirm it, but it’s a strong gut feeling that tells me so.



oh, so you weren't lieing per say...just makeing up what you want to be true...based on nothing





> And by getting rid of the depth of lore and details WoTC didn’t just (apparently) fail to garner a new customer base… I think they also lost the “old guard”, who thought these aspect of the setting was the reason to *love* it and buy the product.




HA...really then tell me why LFR is going strong? 

if you are going to just make stuff up with not proof, how are we going to discuse this at all???




> And who has said that “if your group doesn’t do this well, play in another setting”? I don’t think anyone has said it so far.




really??? are you forgetting earlier posts in this very thread??



you know what this is getting use nowhere, so let me recap teh first post...






wingsandsword said:


> This is about the so-called "canon lawyer", the person with huge archives of Forgotten Realms knowledge in their head that not only knows obscure minutiae of Faerun and Abeir-Toril, they also expect any FR game to use all of this.






> The thing is, I always hear these "canon lawyer" horror stories online but I never ran across them in real life.  When I run Forgotten Realms the players I run with generally know the Realms from playing Baldur's Gate or following some of the novels (particularly the Elminster or Drizzt ones), or they are also a casual fan and have read some of the gaming materials, especially those about a part of the setting they prefer (one of my friends likes Netheril, for example, and knows that decently well, but he couldn't rattle off dates and obscure minutiae).






> I've ran into them in message boards, like when I once said something about the Forgotten Realms that is contradicted by some obscure public e-mail Ed Greenwood from years ago that was dutifully archived, and I've heard some horror stories about them here, but I do really wonder, just how common are they in typical Forgotten Realms D&D play?




now I think we have seen those players in this very thread...


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 10, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> all he needs is to have read 1 novel, or acsessory more then you...and remember something from it...




Actually, you could have read the exact same number, and the other player could remember something you didn't.  All it takes is one source of information that each of you interpret/recall/whatever differently.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 10, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Actually, you could have read the exact same number, and the other player could remember something you didn't.  All it takes is one source of information that each of you interpret/recall/whatever differently.




that was my thinking, but you said it better


----------



## Sylrae (Jul 10, 2009)

Hmm. Well, I'm one of those people. But only for things that are important. Sometimes for things important but obscure. Like How time-traveling magic has all sorts of extra restrictions in FR, due to a 2e book (Elves of Cormanthyr, I believe).

But I found it more stressful than any DMs have (due to every canon thing I could remember being ignored, and me not saying anything to be nice). So now I simply wont PLAY in FR and only run it. But I encourage the players to correct me if I messed up a plot detail, at which point the game takes a 5 minte recess for me to rework the plot~OR, I have something occur early enough in the game that they clearly are diverging from standard canon, and then nobody questions me. I've done the whole thousands of years in the past thing. Alternate Reality FR can be fun. elminster is Evil, or the cult of the dragon was actually right and they took over, or whatever. even when i dont do that, It usually doesnt happen, but I've only had a couple diehard realms players. Most of them didnt read anything more than the frcs and pgfr 3e.

I'm not a Canon Porn novel person though. But if its in the sourcebooks I tend to expect it to be there. Including from old editions... It wasnt fun to play FR with a DM who didnt know FR. And I wont touch 4e FR products after the Reset. Too many of the changes drive me up the wall.
-Dragonborn? Are they like Dragonkin? -> No, they're new. And the women have boobs. -> So what happened to the Dragonkin, which have been in FR for a long time then? -> they're still there, we're just never going to mention them again.
And the deity genecide and destruction of most of the cities made it less appealing too.

I do tend to expect continuity. it would be a hell of alot easier if there was condensed continuity guides of some kind.

Now, I dont expect to play in a published setting. Or a published setting that's well Defined. But if you're going to run the setting, I tend to want you to know a good chunk of material and be willing to adjust for inconsistencies you didnt accomodate in some other way. That's why I dont usually play in FR. Being someone who likes the Canon - at least as a starting point for a game, butchered campaign settings make me cringe. 

Run Ravenloft, or some homebrew setting. I'll enjoy the game, and wont expect it to match canon. You can still easily use the feats/spells/class options in the FR books.


----------



## Uzzy (Jul 10, 2009)

> what is wrong with running a campign with just the main book??? you just suggected possible 16 mods, and 4 suplments...




Sigh. Nothing is wrong with running a campaign with just the main book. Everything else is optional, an extra possibility for DM's wanting some more inspiration for an FR campaign.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jul 10, 2009)

From the OP: 

Yes, canon lawyers are about as illogical as players who read game modules (thereby ruining the game) and then tell off the DM because he is not following the "plot" when presenting it.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jul 10, 2009)

So in the last several pages, has anyone changed anyone else's mind here or it is a back and forth banter type deal now?


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 10, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> So in the last several pages, has anyone changed anyone else's mind here or it is a back and forth banter type deal now?




If somebody says yes, I personally will be amazed.


----------



## Primal (Jul 11, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> right...becuse when I say less is better, you have to set up a strawman and think I mean not addtional info...





 What strawman? If we apply the same logic to Eberron that’s been prevalent on this thread, it’s 2000+ or so pages to read until you “get it right” (note: I think it’s a silly argument, but that’s the common way for people to “attack” against FR).




> actualy, it leaves penty of room, even in the areas detailed so that this problem wont crop up...infact it was one of the selling points...



 

 Let’s think about this for a while… which sort of canon details are we talking about here? Official NPCs names/alignment/levels? Clothing, food, culture? History and maps? Religious lore? Because I know Eberron supplements have this kind of information, too… (and some of them, like religious tidbits, are here and ther, i.e. scattered in the whole array of books) which means that if I don’t have the right books, some Eberron diehard fan could point out, for example, that Breland does not have X or Y, and my version of Sharn’s city map is non-canonical or that Mror Hold dwarves don’t wage wars against the Warforged (which was supposed to be a major plot hook in my campaign). Whatever was the intention and selling point of the original designers doesn’t matter as much as how your players relate to the setting – that’s what’s more important.




> what is wrong with running a campign with just the main book??? you just suggected possible 16 mods, and 4 suplments...





No, I didn’t; please read the whole post (and each individual paragraph) carefully through before replying. Look at the sentence “and the *book* from the FR1-16 series *for the area* you’re running in”; a single book, not all. As for the supplements, see below.




> wow more books...yea that is always the answer...spend more time and money...why do you people all think the answer is to become what we hate...the canon 'experts'





I hate quoting myself, but that list is supposed to give you the sourcebooks I personally think are *the most relevant* for “a **detailed** campaign set in the Realms”. Now, as I’ve said before, people have different kinds of preferences… some want more details, while others do not. Some take notes, others do not. Some prefer combat while others do not. And so on. If your group (and that’s a generic “you”) hates details and “name-dropping”, don’t do it. 
 My point is, many groups do just fine with CS, but if you want to have some extra info on, for example, religions, organizations, history and FR-specific spells and magic items, it’s in these books. Is 4E FRPG absolutely necessary to run 4E FR? Of course not, but it’s a useful supplement, don’t you agree?

There’s nothing wrong in knowledge per se, i.e. doing research and being an expert in canon – if you flaunt it and use it to point out “errors” in someone’s campaign, then it’s another matter. 




> I mentioned 4 in one of my posts a few pages back...if you look around the front page you will find a thread called "Mary sue I don't understand" that has a huge argument over this...



 

I personally do not know a single one; it almost seems like they’re an internet myth or something. Note that I don’t consider someone pointing out logical canon reasons for why the Spellplague couldn’t happen as written as “canon lawyering” – whenever RSEs take place, I assume the designers would play attention to internal consistency (which is another matter altogether, IMO). Hell, I wouldn’t consider someone pointing out that it’s not possible that the Mournlands is actually a country-sized Psionic entity I wrote into an official Eberron module (and this is just an example).




> wow, but you remember more then they do...how great you caan out think canon lawyers by knowing but loads of it...so still no answer...



 

 Just offer them a logical reason why X and Y are different in your campaign. You don’t need to “outsmart” such people. 




> all he needs is to have read 1 novel, or acsessory more then you...and remember something from it...



 

 And how often do you run into these situations during play? And how many people *actually* are such petty jerks that they’d point out during the session that some minor details is non-canonical? Anyway, he might remember one or two canon details that you are not aware of… however, you have creative control over your campaign. As I said above, tell him that Lord Lightlaughter was assassinated last year, and now (your NPC) Lady Moonshiver is the new local ruler in town X.




> again with the idea it is just my group...again I did this, and they tried, but they couldn't hold back everything they knew, and it just didn't 'feel' like the realms...AND IT IS NOT AN UNHEARD OF PROBLEM...



 

Again, that’s a *GENERIC* you, as in “someone” (passive form). What can I say? Do you think it would be any easier for me to grab ECS or ECG and run a game for a group that has read all the Eberron books and articles? I would have the same problem, *IF* the players are diehard fans who want everything to be 100% according to canon. And, it isn’t just about the depth of lore; I just don’t personally “get” Eberron or even like its steampunk-ish elements, so I don’t think it’s a good setting for me. 




> there is no part of the setting I know more about then my roommate...he has every fr book. and even HE stoped running the realms...becuse of these same basic things...





See above.




> OK, now I am feed up with this sh-- I took a city name someone else in the thread talked about...and talked about a general plot idea.
> 
> then when the god like untouchable npc chosen was there, I took my roommates base book to see if this info was provided...I found about 1/4 a page on the city...and guess what was not mentioned in the MAIN BOOK DESCRIBEING THIS CITY...didn't see fit to say 'she is a CR 28 archmage chosen...you would think something so important would be mentioned...or atleast say see pg XXX.



 

Well, your post implied that you had read about the city, since you “challenged” me with your “How would you feel… (and so on)” bit. So, I assumed you meant “How about if I replace a Chosen of Mystra with two DMPCs? Could you accept that?”. And I replied that I *might*, if the reason for these two dethroning/replacing/helping Alustriel was logical. And, I also assumed that if someone uses *only* the CS book to run FR, he’d read the *whole* book and spot Alustriel there. 




> WOW another strawman... the basic eberon book describes what sharn is...yu would CHOOSE to disregard this...





Strawman? I think not. Look, haven’t people thrown around the idea of making major changes to canon? What if I thought it would be cooler that way? My point is, there are limits to our suspension to disbelief and how much we can accept changes to canon (changes that we’re aware of, that is); for example, some people cannot stand the “gamey” nature of 4E powers, but those same guys might very well be okay with replacing Waterdeep or Sharn with Greyhawk City (map and all).




> you know the main book...



 

Yes, exactly; the rest is up to what you and your group want out of the setting. For example, in one of the groups I used to play in the guys (DM included) would hardly ever read “fluff”, and I had a problem with that, but the rest didn’t. In my own group, you can’t just pick up FRCS and run with it – we all love details, so we use a lot of sourcebooks in our FR campaigns.




> who are you talking about here??? noble families...local festivals, who ever said that was the problem???
> 
> lets recap here:
> 
> elminster...symbol...blackstaff...alustrial...thay ...cult of dragon...these are the problems so far...at least by this thread...



 

Um, now you’re probably confusing topics… I thought this thread was about having problems with players who have more knowledge about FR than you do -- *not* high-level NPCs or powerful organizations (and whether they ruin a DM’s campaigns or not)? 




> maybe you should take a look through this thread, the mary sue thread (until elminster was banned), the ebberon v fr thread...or go to the WotC thread history of the FR sub board.





Well, I’m still not seeing it… more posters seem to be *AGAINST* FR and Elminster (and, sadly, Ed himself).




> WHAT!!!!???? I call bs, every bit of proof (mostly sercumstantial) points to the reverse...that is just out right lieing at this point...





Then *PROVE *that I’m lying… 




> oh, so you weren't lieing per say...just makeing up what you want to be true...based on nothing





Well, kind of hard to prove without any hard numbers, right? If you have them, please post them. As for my anecdotal evidence, WoTC FR threads have almost died since 4E FR came out, and 95% or so of the posters in Candlekeep. And I don’t think I’ve seen much “FR love” around here… even less so in this thread (and the threads you pointed to). So, where are all the “new” fans? I also know that Rich Baker originally posted (on the WoTC boards) about upcoming FR supplements that would follow ‘Scepter Tower’, but later on when the books had been out for a while they announced that there would only be 3 books per setting. Furthermore, they have now reversed the order, i.e. publishing EPG before ECG, and that tells me that FRCG and the changes didn’t go over so well, which probably led to FRPG also selling far less than expected because of the outrage over the changes.




> HA...really then tell me why LFR is going strong?
> 
> if you are going to just make stuff up with not proof, how are we going to discuse this at all???





Well, show me your hard evidence then; prove me wrong. How do you know LFR is “going strong”? You try to refute my arguments with “You’re lying!” and “You’re wrong!”, but I don’t see any actual counterarguments from you…




> really??? are you forgetting earlier posts in this very thread??
> 
> you know what this is getting use nowhere, so let me recap teh first post...
> 
> ...



 

We have? Who? Note that the OP is saying “I always hear these “canon lawyer" horror stories online but I never ran across them in real life.“ and “I've ran into them in message boards … but I really do wonder how common are they in typical Forgotten Realms D&D play?”. So, he (like me) hasn’t EVER *met* them in RL. And how are these quotes related to my question? Please, feel free to point out the posts that said “if your group doesn’t do this well, play in another setting”, because I don’t recall a single one.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 11, 2009)

Primal said:


> What strawman? If we apply the same logic to Eberron that’s been prevalent on this thread, it’s 2000+ or so pages to read until you “get it right” (note: I think it’s a silly argument, but that’s the common way for people to “attack” against FR).




     see this is still the strawman...100,000+ pages compaired to 2,000+ pages...

      Also ebberon in it's entire is based on it's 3.5 main book...you could take all the fluff from 3.5 book and still run 4e.  If on the day ebberon's main book for 3.5 came out I bought the 1st fr books...the old grey box. would it have mostly the same fluff as the 3.0 book???




> Again, that’s a *GENERIC* you, as in “someone” (passive form). What can I say? Do you think it would be any easier for me to grab ECS or ECG and run a game for a group that has read all the Eberron books and articles?



 Yes...





> I would have the same problem, *IF* the players are diehard fans who want everything to be 100% according to canon. And, it isn’t just about the depth of lore; I just don’t personally “get” Eberron or even like its steampunk-ish elements, so I don’t think it’s a good setting for me.




but you are so not getting this...in ebberon the main part of the world is fully stated in the main book...everything else is add on. In the realms there are hundreds of thousands of things not mentioned or even hinted at in the main book...again silvery moon doesn't tell you it has a chosen of a god as it's ruler...I think that is important...




> Well, your post implied that you had read about the city, since you “challenged” me with your “How would you feel… (and so on)” bit. So, I assumed you meant “How about if I replace a Chosen of Mystra with two DMPCs? Could you accept that?”.




you mean the post that said "Who ever the current ruler is", and "He" ....??? how could you think I knew it was HER?????





> And I replied that I *might*, if the reason for these two dethroning/replacing/helping Alustriel was logical.



and codzilla and assasin plot villians...




> And, I also assumed that if someone uses *only* the CS book to run FR, he’d read the *whole* book and spot Alustriel there.




and If I don't know where you think someone would remember a city and an NPC 100 pages away?!?!?!?!?!?!?






> Strawman? I think not. Look, haven’t people thrown around the idea of making major changes to canon? What if I thought it would be cooler that way? My point is, there are limits to our suspension to disbelief and how much we can accept changes to canon (changes that we’re aware of, that is);



so think here...


> there are limits to our suspension to disbelief and how much we can accept changes to canon



meaning the setting has made it to where you can not imagin some NPC beaten...

can you not see that problem??

there are things so overdone you can't imagin they can ever change...





> Um, now you’re probably confusing topics… I thought this thread was about having problems with players who have more knowledge about FR than you do -- *not* high-level NPCs or powerful organizations (and whether they ruin a DM’s campaigns or not)?




the two go togather...you see these organizations, and high level NPCs are part of what is overly done...lets start with how many bits of chosen lore (You know lie who rules X city...). AND they are part of the problem with canon...



> Well, I’m still not seeing it… more posters seem to be *AGAINST* FR and Elminster (and, sadly, Ed himself).




WOW... I like the world, and ed...elminster I hate...but hey, keep going makeing baseless claims..



> Then *PROVE *that I’m lying…




sure...lets start with the high sales, even needing multi printing of 4e books. Then we will go with activity on the LFR boards...





> Well, kind of hard to prove without any hard numbers, right? If you have them, please post them.




lets see what you have for proof...here is a hint there is none



> Furthermore, they have now reversed the order, i.e. publishing EPG before ECG, and that tells me that FRCG and the changes didn’t go over so well, which probably led to FRPG also selling far less than expected because of the outrage over the changes.




or they figured the better selling book (for all players intead of a sub set of DMs) might drum up more sales...like  example (Player A) doesn't run or play in ebberon, but buys the PG for new races and classes and feats. If he likes it he might buy the setting book...




> Well, show me your hard evidence then; prove me wrong. How do you know LFR is “going strong”? You try to refute my arguments with “You’re lying!” and “You’re wrong!”, but I don’t see any actual counterarguments from you…




I am saying you are lying...prove me wrong...


----------



## Wenin (Jul 11, 2009)

I really feel for any GM who even dares to attempt to run a game in the modern world.  There is a whole Library of Congress of information detailing that world......

Imagine, a GM that knows little about chicago, or dislikes undeclared aspects of it, or just wants to make it their own city by way of major changes, running a campaign in chicago.....

Player "Let's go to the top of the Sears Tower, we maybe able to see from there!"

GM "You get to the top and find your view blocked by a taller building."

Player "WTF?!?!?!"


Or something less offensive...

Player "I head to the nearest Portillos, I love their hot dogs"

GM "Portillos?  Umm what's that?"

Player "Ummm a famous chicago restraunt?"

GM "That was taken over by McDonalds, and its now called McPortillos."

Player "Eh???"

Or

Player "Let's call Mayor Daley, he'll help us bust these drug dealers!"

GM _"Well that ruins this adventure, whatever shall I do now...."_ "Umm he doesn't answer his phone"

Player "Well let's call Police Chief Weis!"

GM "No answer"

Player "Attorney General Madigan!?!"

GM "Died"

Player "Roland Burris?!?!"

GM "He answers, and wants money to help you..."





One of the significant benefits of a setting is that it allows everyone playing the setting a chance to come to the table with knowledge of the setting.  This allows them to play characters that LIVE within the setting, rather than characters that experience one as it unfolds before them.  While some players and GMs do not seek or some may not even desire this game play, you must accept without reservation that there are players that DO like this aspect of playing in a detailed setting.  This doesn't intrinsically make the player BETTER, nor does it make the player WORSE.

It is what the player does with this information, that makes them a good or bad player.  Believing that it is the setting that causes this problem is a failure in identifying the problem.... which isn't always the player with all this wealth of knowledge.


Now for an example on par with one of the stories of these "realms lawyers" that I found most annoying, as it shows a CLEAR example of a bad PLAYER, not a bad SETTING.

Back to chicago.....

Player "We're heading to Rosemont, and breaking into 410 McKinley St!  The man that lives there is a mafia enforcer!  We'll get him to talk!"

GM "WTF??!  Who??"

Player "Tommy Two guns, he lives there.  I read it in the Chicago Tribune yesterday!"

GM "No such person lives there"

Player "Yes he does, and you're a crappy GM, that just can't handle that I know more than you about Chicago!!!", goes buck wild..... storms the house anyway.... and promptly dies from a airliner that lands short at O'hare

Damn glad there aren't any RPGs played in the modern world.  What to do with all the powerful figures that could so easily solve the players problems, and the endless amount of information about the world?

/sarcasm off

Yet somehow, we manage.... right?

A GM shouldn't have to know a setting down to the nitty gritty details, but they should be familiar with it via broad strokes of a paint brush.  If a GM wants to remove Sears Tower from their Chicago, expect a player to be all "WTF??" and have an answer other than "GM Fiat"

Anyhow, if you have someone that knows a setting in more detail than you as the GM, use communication, communication, communication....  You could USE that player to enhance the game, if you care to try.  Will that player shine a little brighter than the other players that know nothing?  Most likely, but again... USE that player.  Ask that player to help you create a player guide for the other players.  During this creation, the two of you should come to a better understanding of just how close to the original setting you are wanting to run it, and you may learn more about the setting.

If this fails, again it isn't the setting that created this beast, it their mother and father.

The days of GM IS GOD and IT IS THE GM's GAME, should be placed in the past.  Everyone at that table is contributing their time, energy and creativity to the game.  It is everyone's game.

If you just don't like the setting, fine, whatever..... find a way to move on.


----------



## Sylrae (Jul 11, 2009)

I'm inclined to agree with primal. I tend to want canon, but I dont expect perfection. If the whole campaign is based on something that is a big contradiction though, I'll get a bit irked. BUT! I wont harass the DM mid game. and after game, I let him know of the contradiction, and give him some canonical book that shows the area/problem/whatever, and let them decide what to do with it. They know the contradiction is there, they can deal with it how they want. And I didnt ruin a game session.

But I've never really met many Realms Canon Lawyers that were a pain in the ass. Occasionally they use a bit of FR knowledge I hadnt thought of like "OH, we can totally get the Zhents in on this to stop those pesky Harpers that have been following us, and manipulate them into fighting eachother!" I proceed to make them do their Knowledge roll and then see if they can think of it "In Game". If I make a colossal oops and they point it out to me, I take the constructive criticism, and then adjust accordingly. it requires thinking on your feet, and some knowledge of the material. Oh well.

As for Mary Sues, Keep in mind who the major ones are, and then if you come up with a situation they could step in, and you dont want them to, have a reason for it.

"Elminster will save us!"
"Sorry Kiddies, Elminster is stopping another world threatening problem and is unavailable"
"Drizzt Will Save us!"
"Good luck finding him"

Problem Mary Sue: Solved. I find Mary Sues to be annoying myself. Now, I'll include NPCs that are published of all levels - in fact, before going into a new location, I see if there are published stats of NPCs in that location, and look up the location. A quick google search will tell me where to look for them, or have links to unofficial stat blocks, etc. But even when I do, they are not Deus Ex Machina for the players.

I actually actively dislike many of the upper level NPCs that are popular. Elminster is okay but too Deus Ex Machina to involve in any capacity other than to offer the PCs advice before rnning off to deal with a bigger problem, Drizzt annoys me, and is always either nowhere to be found, or makes a cameo as an NPC about to die unless the heroes are fortunate enough to save them without killing themselves - but they usually say "DROW KILL IT!" and dont realize it was Drizzt until they and a whole bunch of others have slaughtered a Drizzt - I've had him die of in 3 games. I had Halaster following the PCs once. He had an obsession with a female PC. He was trying to decide whether he wanted to experiment on her or have sex with her. The players were well creeped out. It was the best Mary Suing ever! He saved her life a couple times - but ignored the rest of the party, and they werent too happy when they had to go to undermountain to get her back. lol

And yeah. From the people I've seen, and activity at Candlekeep, and Number of posts here, Forgotten Realms is all but gone and forgotten with the advent of 4e. I know a guy who runs living forgotten realms. But I know alot more people who wont go anywhere near it for fear of being corrupted by the mockery of the setting they used to love. Effectively, the people I know who havent given up on FR have given up on anything published past the end of 3.5e. (other than like 1 or 2). That's what I've done. There's enough published material in the pre-4e stuff that you can find the information you want on any topic in the realms.

I would love a FR encyclopedia program though. I have the Maps program, its amazingly useful (though outdated). A program filled with the fluff from the books, organized by topic in a wikipedia-like manner would make things easier, and would be more useful than yet more sourcebooks. Being able to look up NPCs and get a brief history with the years noted and a writeup would be amazing too. I'd want it to include more than the stuff in one edition though. So, while new would supercede old, anything not changed in 3.5e would be listed from 2e.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 11, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> So in the last several pages, has anyone changed anyone else's mind here or it is a back and forth banter type deal now?




no, noone has even listened to my argumentss, and I am getting sick of thers...so this is my last post I give up some people just will never listen to reason...


----------



## Primal (Jul 11, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> no, noone has even listened to my argumentss, and I am getting sick of thers...so this is my last post I give up some people just will never listen to reason...




And you have listened to others, and their advice? Instead, you're accusing me of lying, and cannot even offer any real proof to back that claim up. And I think the "burden of proof" is on you here, because I have admitted that I'm basing my claims on anecdotal evidence (since I don't have any sales numbers and I doubt you do either) and presented my "case".  

To be honest, I'm kind of tired of repeating and/or quoting myself in every post, because you just keep repeating the same questions and points over and over again. 

Maybe this is a language-based issue, because English is not my native language?


----------



## JeffB (Jul 11, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> no, noone has even listened to my argumentss, and I am getting sick of thers...so this is my last post I give up some people just will never listen to reason...




I know for my own part I tuned out on the arguing going on awhile back. Picking apart posts line by line page after page is beyond annoying. IMO You (the arguers), should just agree to disagree and move on. The discussion was pretty good (whether pro or con) at one point- i.e. before it devolved into "oh yeah..well...blah blah".. followed by "nuh uh! blah blah blah blah".


----------

