Pathfinder 1E Forgotten Realms in Pathfinder

I was hoping that you could help me determine the truth of a claim by Wizards of the Coast. And I'm hoping to find unbiased answers among Pathfinder players. You see, they are currently claiming that of their published settings, Forgotten Realms is by far the most liked setting they have published. But we're wondering if they are confusing correlation and causality. FR has been our early in the release cycle for multiple editions of D&D, including the only official on out so far with the current, and that may bias the results. People may play it because it's popular, or people play it because it's available. But PF has been out of that cycle, so hopefully you'll be able to provide unbiased data. Thanks for your time.

1. I have played/run the Forgotten Realms in Pathfinder and would do it again.
2. If I was joining a new PF campaign, Forgotten Realms would be a draw.
3. FR or another campaign setting does matter to me / are equal.
4. If I was joining a new PF campaign, Forgotten Realms would be negative.
5. I'd never want to play in the Forgotten Realms in Pathfinder.
6. What are the Forgotten Realms?

...I am not quite sure that this poll will produce the results that you desire. Pathfinder has its own setting built into the system. I don't think that you're going to find a lot of PF players that play outside of that setting. However, if my DM decided to put the work into adapting PF to the FR setting I would certainly play.

Thanks for the info. I expect what you say is correct, but would a game being outside the default setting be innately negative, or just less likely because more games are in that setting?

Blue said:

Thanks for the info. I expect what you say is correct, but would a game being outside the default setting be innately negative, or just less likely because more games are in that setting?

Click to expand...

...I find nothing objectionable to running a setting outside of the one designed for the system. It would, however, require significant effort on the part of the DM to adapt it. It's not that more games are played in the default setting, it's that every PF game that I have played in, run or have seen run is in the default setting. PF has not really adopted the multiple-setting approach used by DnD.

Don't care.

My policy is that if someone wants to run a game for me, I'm happy to play it (time permitting). That applies just as much to "FR in Pathfinder" as to anything else.

I personally wouldn't run such a game - neither FR nor Pathfinder is to my taste these days. If I were to run PF it would be one of their Adventure Paths, which I'd set in Golarion by default. And if I were to run FR, it would probably be 3.5e.

FWIW, my current campaign is Eberron in 5e. The only other published setting I'd really consider is Dark Sun - again, unless I happen to be running an Adventure Path.

was said:

Pathfinder has its own setting built into the system. I don't think that you're going to find a lot of PF players that play outside of that setting.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't be at all surprised to find they have a very similar set of stats to those from WotC: excluding those running Adventure Paths and/or Organised Play, I'd expect to see the majority using homebrew, the next big chunk using Golarion, and then a fairly small sliver using other settings. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if the percentages matched almost exactly.

I have run pathfinder games in the realms. I made minor adaptations in the case they were needed. I adapted races when players wanted to play them (like elves won't sleep). Races are the most difficult thing to adapt since in the realms and 3.5 there are really weird races with lvl adjustment, but I don't run that kind of game where a player can show up with a halfminotaur halftroll halfalien.
The rules for race creation support almost anything I needed.
I added the regional starting equipment in order to add flavor to players.
And since domains and subdomains are not the same I just adapted when asked. Like "this domain didn't existed in 3.5 but it fit with X deity, OK use it" or things like that.
I didn't import races that don't exist in the realms for players.

I've played PF as a 3.5+ game ... no one in our group really knew anything about the PF world, just the updated and maintained rules for our D&D game.

Is there anything really that different about FR that would have to be changed ... other than some flavor issues? So their elves and dwarves need to be PF'd ... It never seemed to be a problem.

(Go Greyhawk!)