Forgotten Realms "Canon Lawyers"

[Primal]

Originally Posted by TwinBahamut

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Primal

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]

Originally Posted by GMforPowergamers

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Bumbles

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

Originally Posted by Keefe the Thief

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]

Originally Posted by Keefe the Thief

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]

Originally Posted by Keefe the Thief

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]

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]

Originally Posted by GMforPowergamers

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]

Originally Posted by Primal

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...

Originally Posted by wingsandsword

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]

Originally Posted by GMforPowergamers

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]

Originally Posted by Bumbles

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by JoeGKushner

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]

Originally Posted by GMforPowergamers

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...

*SNIP*
now I think we have seen those players in this very thread...

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]

Originally Posted by Primal

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).[font=Verdana][size=2]

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]

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.