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.
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
__________________ iAltdorf. An interactive map of the capital of the Empire in WFRP! Download today! Can be used in any fantasy campaign!
http://altdorfer.blogspot.com - Check out the Altdorf Correspondent! A WFRP blog about life in the Imperial capital.
"All editions of D&D are awesome." - Fifth Element (EN World Forums, 2008)
”The tendency to confuse personal taste with objective quality is nearly universal.” - Robin D. Laws – Robin’s Laws of Good Gamemastering (Steve Jackson Games, 2002)
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
Last edited by Bumbles; 6th July 2009 at 05:13 PM..
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
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?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeGKushner
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...
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?
Quote:
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!!!"
Quote:
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.
Last edited by Bumbles; 6th July 2009 at 06:22 PM..
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!!!"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Quote:
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.
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???
__________________
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!
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Primal
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obryn
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
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.)
Quote:
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.
Can you point out where I say that once since you say 'everybody'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdrakeh
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.
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!
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
