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.
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.)
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....
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).
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.
Casual nudity (squick if you like) doesn't equal sex in Faerûn.
Here's a quote(1) from Ed Greenwood saying that it does.
Quote:
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
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.
__________________ We can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming. - Werner von Braun
Right now you have no idea how lucky you are that I am not a sociopath. - A sign seen above my desk.
Never confuse movement with action. - Ernest Hemingway
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.
__________________ The female tiefling's horns are not 'handlebars'.
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.
__________________ "5. If they do not wish to take a few risks, their characters should stay home and become shopkeepers and farmers.
Then wish them luck!" -- Gary Gygax: Shrine of the Kuo-Toa
"Dragons are so Beowulf! Should DnD be in the business of selling 1200 year-olds back their childhood? Sheesh." -- gizmo33, on the power of nostalgia
I am not a Realsmhead. I enjoyed the setting, but I'm largely neutral about it and the characters.
That really doesn't show.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdrakeh
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.
__________________ We can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming. - Werner von Braun
Right now you have no idea how lucky you are that I am not a sociopath. - A sign seen above my desk.
Never confuse movement with action. - Ernest Hemingway
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.
__________________ 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.
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.
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.
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."
__________________ We can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming. - Werner von Braun
Right now you have no idea how lucky you are that I am not a sociopath. - A sign seen above my desk.
Never confuse movement with action. - Ernest Hemingway
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."
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.
__________________ 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.
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uzzy
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.
__________________ We can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming. - Werner von Braun
Right now you have no idea how lucky you are that I am not a sociopath. - A sign seen above my desk.
Never confuse movement with action. - Ernest Hemingway
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.
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...
__________________
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!
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.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
