General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
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? "
__________________ C4bal: We´re watching your dicerolls.
X-Zine - the German review & news site for RPGs / books / comics / music / CCG / DVDs and much much more
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
Quote:
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...
[quote=Primal;4853779]
Quote:
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...".
Ok I know hommlet is a generic village, or atleast it was in retuern to temple of elmental evil....and I know the realms has plenty of room for acended gods, so vecna CAN be fit in...so what is the problem here???
Quote:
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)
but you had a problem with me taking the 1/4 of a page description of silverymoon from the campiang guide...
Quote:
... 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.
what if the DM has a problem with lack of 'rw' names in general. I see no reason why some people can't be Grant, Mathew, Justin, David, or John...iinfact I have used each of those names over the years...infact every edtion (sevral times in 3.5) I have had an NPC paliden named Mathew...it just fits so well
Quote:
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.
yet you attacked my game idea like a rabid racoon cornererd...
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remathilis
Planescape
It should be given special award to Die Vecna, Die: a module that manages to trash no less than THREE different settings (Greyhawk, Ravenloft, Planescape) in the course of one module.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remathilis
Those of you who fretted that monsters have too many hp and fights take too long: meet the barbarian. The ULTIMATE "Lets speed this combat up, I need to whiz" class!
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.
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
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...
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??
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remathilis
Planescape
It should be given special award to Die Vecna, Die: a module that manages to trash no less than THREE different settings (Greyhawk, Ravenloft, Planescape) in the course of one module.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remathilis
Those of you who fretted that monsters have too many hp and fights take too long: meet the barbarian. The ULTIMATE "Lets speed this combat up, I need to whiz" class!
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
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)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeb Cook
I think people sometimes get too fixated about what's "official" to see what they could do with the whole.
__________________ Founding Father of O.A.F! - Old school Admirers of Fourth edition
Proud Rouseketeers Member-Badge #2!
"I feel books like "A Princess of Mars", "The Swords of Lankhmar" and "The Black Company" are far more important to your gaming experience than whether you choose between OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, or D&D4E." - The Ravyn
I think people sometimes get too fixated about what's "official" to see what they could do with the whole- "David "Zeb" Cook
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.
Quote:
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!
Last edited by Bumbles; 6th July 2009 at 05:07 PM..
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.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
