D&D 5E Why FR Is "Hated"

[MackMcMacky]

I am absolutely sure of some of the reasons I dislike the setting and this thread has helped me identify another issue, its overuse by TSR/WOTC/Hasbro.

I had high hopes with the original grey box until I read it more carefully. My interest in D&D is greatly fueled by my interest in folklore, mythology, history, and fantasy. The "Realms" just didn't make much sense. Some of the governments are essentially unworkable. The politics, society, and economics would not produce the odd culture the FREALMS possesses. There is simply a lack of structure.

Then the supplements came out which sort of doubled down on an approach that just screamed of an incoherent patchwork world that just ignores how the pieces don't really fit together. The adventures I purchased seemed more geared to getting me to buy novels or video games than being playable and re-playable. There were so many powerful players there wasn't really room for player characters to grow and make their stamp without either ignoring many of those powerful players or centering quite a bit around them. (And yes, I know you can leave them out but, frankly, that's leaving quite a bit of Forgotten Realms out so what's the point of using it then.)

And then the people who insisted on using FRealms were another drawback. I have never read the Drow Ranger books and have no intention of reading them, especially after dealing with their fans in pick-up games at stores. The folks who ran FRealms dropped references to the novels I had no intention of reading, supplements I didn't care about, etc. And they ran boring railroad games.

The people who ran Mystara settings and Greyhawk settings ran adventures that were more interesting with challenges designed for players to overcome rather than narrated through by the DM.

Forgotten Realms is a thing because Gygax was ousted and Greyhawk was his baby. They threw everything and the kitchen sink around Greenwood's actual campaign and made it as KEWL as possible emphasizing powerful NPCs, powerful magic, and encouraging a multitude of character races and builds that essentially ignores that what makes a setting distinctive is as much what you CANNOT DO as what you CAN DO. They also took what Dragon Lance started with the plots on rails and ran with it.

Another annoying thing is how little is really that original concerning FRealms. I don't know how many times I roll my eyes reading some young whippersnapper attribute so many things that originated elsewhere to the FRealms, for example, the Drow. I am sure in 10 years I am going to hear about how Acererak is really a FRealms creation.

This thread was created by someone who wanted to know why the FRealms are hated so I jumped in and offered my perspective. Trust me, I'm okay. I have a crew that plays CoChthulhu, 2E Greyhawk, Pathfinder Golarion (which I don't care for as it is very much like FRealms to me but I play and make the best of it), and 5E Greyhawk. I still have my FRealms modules and I still try to mine them for useful bits with much less success than I have from the 1E modules and the Judges Guild adventures as well as some free stuff out there on the net. If you like FRealms good for you! You are well-served by the business decisions that have made concerning D&D. Your love of the FRealms really doesn't change why other people hate it or don't care for it.

 

[Hussar]

No, I don't think you are lying or deluded. Nothing so dramatic as that. Just that perhaps folks aren't always sure of the reasons thay may like or dislike something. And sometimes it's interesting to discuss to see if a greater understanding can be attained.

That would be fine the first time. Heck, even the second time, just to make sure. But, after repeated statements detailing that I don't like the Realms because of the volume of material I feel that I would need to use in order to play in that setting (whether you think you need to use it or not is irrelavent - I'm telling you what I feel), I get the feeling that my issues are being pretty much ignored.

Well, I wasn't talking about running a post-War of the Lance game specifically. Just a Dragonlance Game. To me that means War of the Lance. So I wouldn't need any other products to play Dragonlance beyond the ones with which I'm already familiar.

Anything after the War of the Lance is pretty much garbage anyway and can't be fun.

Well, fair enough. We're talking about needing a single source book now. Ok, fair enough. Although, running a War of the Lance era game without at least having the modules would be very difficult. You could run something that is loosely based around Dragonlance, but, anyone with even a passing familiarity with the setting wouldn't recognize it outside of a couple of proper nouns. The DL Adventures book (the one I'm assuming you're talking about) really does require the modules in order to make much sense. There are a LOT of references to the modules contained in that book. Which makes sense. DLA was meant as a supplement to the modules, not really a campaign book in and of itself.

I mean, while DLA does have a map of Ansalon, it's a very sparse map with almost no detail. It basically has the capital cities of each country and that's about it. You'd have a pretty uphill battle running a campaign set in War of the Lance with just that book.

But, again, that's MY POINT. I could run a WotL campaign with the modules and one book. That's it. That's all it would take to run a pretty much full on canon DL campaign of that period. A pretty minor investment to get all the canon available.

If I wanted to have that level of canon in a Forgotten Realms game, I'd need dozens, if not a couple of hundred supplements. Monster books, various country guides, class splats (TWO full gods books alone in 2e), dozens of Dragon magazine articles, on and on and on.

Do I absolutely need these? Maybe not. But, the fact that they are there means that I am NOT INTERESTED in starting. That mountain of material means that I have zero interest in running an FR game. None. Zero. Nada. It is a barrier to my entry into the setting.

Since that barrier doesn't exist for a lot of other settings, I would much rather run those settings. I have no problems running published settings. I ran Scarred Lands for years in 3e. I am running a Primeval Thule game right now. Published settings isn't the problem. FOR ME the problem is any time I pick up a Forgotten Realms supplement, I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that that supplement will reference several, if not dozens of other sources. Sorry, not interested.

 

[Selvarin]

Despite the fact that I'm telling you specifically that "abundance of info" is a problem? Or others are specifically telling you that the abundance of high level NPC's is a problem? Do you think that we're lying to you? Or somehow deluded? We're telling you, specifically, what we don't like about the setting. Instead of telling me that I'm wrong, perhaps you could simply accept that I know what I like and don't like.

As far as running Dragonlance, I'd say yes, it would be impossible for you to run a post War of the Lance DL game without buying at least a few supplements. Well, you could run a campaign, post WotL, but, it would be 100% home-brew.

Like the example you gave. A gnome wild mage IS canon post War of the Lance. They made changes (and some pretty spectacularly big ones like making Draconians a playable race) to the setting and, without access to that information, your campaign isn't going to be a home-brew game set in Ansalon. It would be unrecognizable as Dragonlance to anyone who actually followed the canon.

And, again, I'd point out that to run a post War of the Lance game, you'd need, about, two books. Maybe 3. Because that's all there is. Not counting novels of course. But, we're talking about being able to buy 100% of the setting material. Very easily accomplished. Buying even a fraction of the material produced for FR is a major undertaking.

"There's too much info!"---Don't use it. If all you need are the maps and some general ideas on what's what, boom. You're in.

"There's too many high-level characters!"--Easily remedied. You may still dislike the ones published in 'canon' but, again, it's easily ignored.


I think we get it. That and other complaints are valid reasons to be turned off of making purchases or otherwise becoming invested in it. What we're saying is that both of those listed are easily avoided by purchasing the basics and accepting--yes, accepting and without some weird form of guilt--that some of what's published doesn't work for you. Don't like the part where some inn is run by a retired 16th level bard? FWOOM Now he's a 7th level bard, 3rd level, or maybe even the inn keeper is a washout from the local militia named Wilfreid.

Seriously, one of the things that made RPGs more tolerable for me was accepting A) I would never play in or run a 'pure' RPG, B) whatever it was had to work for me, and C) as long as it captured the spirit then it would feel right enough. IMO running a game in the Realms is like adapting a book into a movie. It's a separate adaptation, something of an echo of whatever's been published. So the main parts will apply--maps, locale descriptions, etc--but that certain particulars will not. And that I will not lose my cred by adding something that isn't 'FR': including the drow city of Sheoloth, parking a city of necromancers from another world on the edge of Anauroch near Evereska, modding the map a little to add a few extra touches (some more forest, a few extra towns, etc.).

Let me put it another way: I'm in my 40's and even with a basic set-up of any campaign world i will never utilize it all before I die or get shipped to an old folks' home. Just like I will never fully utilize or enjoy every character race and class combination. Life is too short, game on.

 

[schnee]

Because I'm a pretty young gamer and I've never seen material published for Greyhawk. I owned the 3.5 books when I was young (never got to play) so I like using dieties like Pelor whom I have learned is Greyhawk. Or Corellon and Moradin who I have no idea where they hail from(though I've also tried to research more dieites for those pantheons and made some changes to the whole thing).

...

I get the hate in a defensive way, because at this point it is FR or make it up yourself, maybe convert if you happen to be an old timer who has access to a lot of stuff they bought years before. But, to me and my peers who only really started investing in DnD in the last couple of years, it is a binary choice of setting.

...

All the lore you guys talk about, all the old modules you recommend. Us new players have no way of knowing about it unless we go looking for it.

That's a really interesting perspective. Looking back, I had some of the same feelings about the settings in the early gaming scene as well - Blackmoor, Runequest, etcetera. I heard the same gripes, and it meant little to me, as our group had DMs who rolled their own worlds just like you are.

Since 5E is a 'compromise' edition that pulled back towards the safe and the familiar, I don't think we'll get much from WoTC as far as setting. And, since the fiscal effect of all those cool settings of the 90's like Darksun and Planescape was a divided audience and losing money, I wouldn't bet on anything beyond a chapter here and there to throw a bone to the most dedicated grognards (who will probably do all their own converting anyway). They are rebuilding the 'archetypical' D&D, and that means focus.

I think we're on our own for anything beyond Faerun.

 

[Aldarc]

I have been ruminating about something as of late, particularly following the posts about the frustration of binary choice that Forgotten Realms represents. When people say how D&D 5E is not just Forgotten Realms because the books mention other settings, how would that appear to someone completely new to D&D? Someone who has never seen D&D before 5th Edition? Would this new player (either a GM or player to-be) be able to pick up a 5E book to gain an adequate basis of knowledge for Forgotten Realms? Likely. This endeavor is further aided by the published 5E adventures that are set in the world. What about when Greyhawk, Krynn, Eberron, Planescape, or Dark Sun are mentioned in the published materials? How does one get a grasp of these settings from the published materials? What does it look or sound like when these materials are mentioned without any supplemental publications that anchor the setting for them? What are these places? Who are these names they mention? Who are these faiths at the back of the PHB? What are these settings even like or about? This is far less of a problem for Forgotten Realms. It's the de facto default lens through which the game is viewed. SCAG. The majority of published adventures. Adventurer's League. Even Greyhawk's classic dungeons (and characters) have been sacked and pillaged for the glory of Forgotten Realms. This is the privilege that Forgotten Realms enjoys. Other settings may be mentioned, but there is virtually no published support for them for any new or returning player.

 

[Maxperson]

As far as running Dragonlance, I'd say yes, it would be impossible for you to run a post War of the Lance DL game without buying at least a few supplements. Well, you could run a campaign, post WotL, but, it would be 100% home-brew.

Like the example you gave. A gnome wild mage IS canon post War of the Lance. They made changes (and some pretty spectacularly big ones like making Draconians a playable race) to the setting and, without access to that information, your campaign isn't going to be a home-brew game set in Ansalon. It would be unrecognizable as Dragonlance to anyone who actually followed the canon.

That's simply not true. Without a single post War book...

Ansalon? Check.
Kender? Check.
Knights of Solamnia? Check.
Blood Sea? Check.
Tinker Gnomes? Check.
Order of High Sorcery? Check.
DL Gods? Check.
Craptons of other identifiably DL stuff? Check.

It wouldn't even be close to being 100% homebrew. Nor would it be unrecognizable as Dragonlance to even one single person who knows about Dragonlance. It wouldn't be 100% canon, but it would be identifiable. It would be homebrew, but not even 50%.

And, again, I'd point out that to run a post War of the Lance game, you'd need, about, two books. Maybe 3. Because that's all there is. Not counting novels of course. But, we're talking about being able to buy 100% of the setting material. Very easily accomplished. Buying even a fraction of the material produced for FR is a major undertaking.

You wouldn't need a single book. They would be helpful, but not necessary.

 

[Mercule]

"There's too much info!"---Don't use it. If all you need are the maps and some general ideas on what's what, boom. You're in.

Which book is that? SCAG, I assume. I don't have that book but, based on online maps from 3E, Chult probably isn't on that map. So, is the new module going to expand the map? Am I supposed to go look up old stuff (like I just did)? Honestly, if it wasn't for having this conversation, I'd probably just tack it to the immediate south of wherever the SCAG map ended. That might really cheese that FR fan I've got in my group.

So, now my options are 1) tell one of my players to suck it up and watch me bastardize a setting he likes or 2) do sufficient research to not make him twitch or 3) don't use the Realms.

It's hard to get players invested in a setting. I've done it with home brews, on occasion. I've also done it with Eberron, to an extent. While I may not like the Realms, it'd be really backward for me to work to get a player to disinvest in a setting, so #1 is a problem.

What I know about the Realms leaves me neutral, on a good day. I'm wholly disinterested in digging into the setting. Also, I'm not sure what level of study it would take for me to make that Realms fan "happy", but I do suspect that research on my part would prompt additional excitement and research on his part, which means I'd have to do a lot of reading. Yuck. I can create a setting from scratch with less effort -- and there's no bitter aftertaste of drow princesses. So, #2 sucks, too. From a purely personal perspective, it's worse than #1.

Which leaves #3. If the metric tonnage of the Realms lore is a liability, and knowing (as I do) that there are other settings that provide at least as good of a baseline, without that liability, how stupid would I have to be to use the Realms? Greyhawk is pretty edition neutral, other than some stats for notable folks, most of which are just class/level/alignment notations, anyway. Eberron is a bit more interesting/less vanilla, and would take a proportionately higher amount of work to use, but that's still just a launching point of a setting.

I'd actually really like to know what WotC is planning with the Realms, going forward. They've as much as said that they aren't worrying about the old lore, too much. Are they maybe doing what so many folks, here, have advised: Take the maps, names, gods, and such and just use what you want to build your own? That makes the 5E Realms a bit more palatable, to me, but it aggravates the issue in dealing with older Realms fans. Why not just start a new setting, slowly rolling out details as they're needed? Did Nentir Vale really do that poorly? It actually seemed like it was pretty cool, I just didn't care for the 4E system as much.

 

[Caliban]

What I don't get, is who exactly is holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to use the Forgotten Realms setting (or any other setting)? If you don't like it, don't use it. Don't use any of it. Problem solved.

I seriously don't understand the angst about this, it is literally just a game.

 

[ccs]

I have been ruminating about something as of late, particularly following the posts about the frustration of binary choice that Forgotten Realms represents. When people say how D&D 5E is not just Forgotten Realms because the books mention other settings, how would that appear to someone completely new to D&D? Someone who has never seen D&D before 5th Edition? Would this new player (either a GM or player to-be) be able to pick up a 5E book to gain an adequate basis of knowledge for Forgotten Realms? Likely. This endeavor is further aided by the published 5E adventures that are set in the world. What about when Greyhawk, Krynn, Eberron, Planescape, or Dark Sun are mentioned in the published materials? How does one get a grasp of these settings from the published materials? What does it look or sound like when these materials are mentioned without any supplemental publications that anchor the setting for them? What are these places? Who are these names they mention? Who are these faiths at the back of the PHB? What are these settings even like or about? This is far less of a problem for Forgotten Realms. It's the de facto default lens through which the game is viewed. SCAG. The majority of published adventures. Adventurer's League. Even Greyhawk's classic dungeons (and characters) have been sacked and pillaged for the glory of Forgotten Realms. This is the privilege that Forgotten Realms enjoys. Other settings may be mentioned, but there is virtually no published support for them for any new or returning player.

If only someone would invent GOOGLE....

 

[ccs]

Which book is that? SCAG, I assume. I don't have that book but, based on online maps from 3E, Chult probably isn't on that map. So, is the new module going to expand the map? Am I supposed to go look up old stuff (like I just did)? Honestly, if it wasn't for having this conversation, I'd probably just tack it to the immediate south of wherever the SCAG map ended. That might really cheese that FR fan I've got in my group.

Eh, you're close. Start at Waterdeep. Go about two map lengths SW. Chults way down south out in the ocean.

So, now my options are 1) tell one of my players to suck it up and watch me bastardize a setting he likes or 2) do sufficient research to not make him twitch or 3) don't use the Realms.

It's hard to get players invested in a setting. I've done it with home brews, on occasion. I've also done it with Eberron, to an extent. While I may not like the Realms, it'd be really backward for me to work to get a player to disinvest in a setting, so #1 is a problem.

What I know about the Realms leaves me neutral, on a good day. I'm wholly disinterested in digging into the setting. Also, I'm not sure what level of study it would take for me to make that Realms fan "happy", but I do suspect that research on my part would prompt additional excitement and research on his part, which means I'd have to do a lot of reading. Yuck. I can create a setting from scratch with less effort -- and there's no bitter aftertaste of drow princesses. So, #2 sucks, too. From a purely personal perspective, it's worse than #1.

Which leaves #3. If the metric tonnage of the Realms lore is a liability, and knowing (as I do) that there are other settings that provide at least as good of a baseline, without that liability, how stupid would I have to be to use the Realms? Greyhawk is pretty edition neutral, other than some stats for notable folks, most of which are just class/level/alignment notations, anyway. Eberron is a bit more interesting/less vanilla, and would take a proportionately higher amount of work to use, but that's still just a launching point of a setting.

Hey, if this adventure sounds fun? Run it. The people at your table who don't know the Realms won't care about Chults exact longitude/latitude. Just that it takes x days worth of boat travel to get there.
The FR fan? Let his imagination fill in the gaps for him. HE knows where Chult is (though his character might not). Meanwhile all you need to know will be in the module & that its about 2 map lengths SW of Waterdeep.

I'd actually really like to know what WotC is planning with the Realms, going forward. They've as much as said that they aren't worrying about the old lore, too much. Are they maybe doing what so many folks, here, have advised: Take the maps, names, gods, and such and just use what you want to build your own? That makes the 5E Realms a bit more palatable, to me, but it aggravates the issue in dealing with older Realms fans. Why not just start a new setting, slowly rolling out details as they're needed? Did Nentir Vale really do that poorly? It actually seemed like it was pretty cool, I just didn't care for the 4E system as much.[/QUOTE]