Realmstalk (if you love it or hate it come on in)

Joshua Dyal said:

Aaron, I guess I don't understand really then, if you're going to make such drastic changes to the feel and tone of the campaign setting, why use it? Are the maps and names really so good that they need to be used when everything else is tweaked?

Click to expand...

Sorry to take so long to get back to you Josh.

Why use a campaign setting if I am going to make drastic changes to the feel and tone?

Well Josh, the feel and tone really don't change the details. Those are the only things that are really completely mine (and what I add in such a way that it fitsinto the bigger picture, andtruth be told that FR is so dang big most stuff fits...) when I use someone else's camapign notes. Feel and tone are not what I buy a camapign setting for. I buy it for the maps and the history and politics and NPCS but not in such detail where it becomes stifling, which I do not find the realms to be. If anything I keep finding myself saying "Aaagh, I need more detail here! Time to make it up!"

It My tone feel and scope are different (scope fluctuates depending on power level) but the best illustration I can come up with is this:

Its the difference between a skeleton and a skeleton whose arm seems like it does not belong and whose robes may indicate a style popular in ancient netheril for only about 50 years.

So now instead of skeletons you have long dead servants of an ancient wizard, and someone is animating them.

Its about the bizzare and the macabre. Like throwing a cowskull and shattering reality to reveal a huge dark citadel.

Its about scenery to die for that is just as much a part of the story as the characters and the npcs. So many people forget that...

Like I was saying

Spine of the World?

But in the end the NPCs are still the same level, the cities have the same layout and mayors, (I changed darkhold and I will change anything else I find that gets declared "not as cool as it could be or was formerly" such as the Dungeon of Swords) But the peregost is still a CE male human Ftr7/Chm5 of Cyric. A 1st level zhent fighter still has a +2 to hit with a crossbow.

No, I dont think changeing tone and scope invalidates the campaign setting. If anything it helps to customise it.

I was simply pointing out the unpublished bits because it gives an idea that everyones realms are going to be different. Just like if I were to run in the scarred lands. It would not be the same scarred lands as the next DM. It would still be seen through my aesthetic (tone and scope) influences. (Dragonslair, Terry Gilliam, Peter S. Beagle, late 1E art, and the art of WHFRP)

A quick aside here: the scarredlands have a lot more of thier world built into the rules and that is not what I look for in a campaign setting.

In my mind FR gives me the most (crunch and background) to work with and show through my lens.

Yes I do add stuff, but it is within the context of the canon. I like the fact that I can add Rappan Athuk, the moathouse dungeon, the banewarrens, Hollowfaust, and Cauldron to the realms and there is still versimilitude along with Waterdeep, Vassa and Dammara, Anarouch, and the Silver marches.

Aaron.

Xarlen said:

I've always loved the Pantheon... It almost seems Greek to me.

Click to expand...

I like it because the gods are almost regional and that they come and go. This is a concept in greyhawk but it seems stronger and more obvious in FR. Greyhawk you have to do a lot of digging to get that info... and I like the names of the FR gods better.

Aaron.

The FR gods seem to be getting less and less regional to me. With the Untheric pantheon gone, and the Mulhorandi and Faerunian pantheons beginning to mingle (Mask getting inroads into Mulhorand, Sharess spreading her worship in Faerun, Tiamat becoming a Faerunian goddess, etc), its more like its becoming one huge "super-pantheon".

The Greyhawk gods, in contrast, are still much more regional in origin. People still make distinction about which gods are Flan, Baklunish, Suloise, Oeridian, etc. and there are several gods that have the same spheres of influence since they're from those different pantheons. The Realms don't really have that much divine overlap.

Zarrock said:

The Realms provide enormous possibilities and character options -any kind of cultural and racial background is feasible.

The rules options in the new FR line are terrific and evocative. Just my taste in PrC, spells, new domains, monsters and races. Regional feats are a great addition to the system. To my mind the FR rules are DnD Deluxe.

Click to expand...

That is the exact explanation I was looking for! D&D DeLuxe, indeed.

Furthermore, the Forgotten Realms are truly vast and diverse, unlike any other campaign setting. There's ALWAYS gonna be secrets that haven't been found out yet and new evil plots around the corner. Greyhawk seems bland to me by comparison. Where's the noble alliance of do-gooders? (=Harpers) Where's the organisation of evil tyrants? (=Zhentarim) Where's the multitude of major and minor gods?

'Cor, our Realms-DM Julien was great at intrigue and storytelling. Too bad he had to go back to France.

Re

I enjoy the FR because it has always seemed like a better supported gameworld than Greyhawk. Greyhawk had great modules, but was pretty poor in actual world development.

I can read through FR material seeking some little bit of information that will give me my next idea for an adventure or plot device. I never could do this with Greyhawk.

There are also well known figures that are well-developed such as Elminster or King Azoun. I enjoyed having some understanding of these figures personalities through the novels.

FR has some of the best villains I have seen in a published gameworld. The Red Wizards of Thay, The Black Network and the Cult of the Dragon make for great adventures.

There are an interesting mix of gods both good and evil.

FR is a potpourri of possibilities when it comes to creating characters and adventures. That is probably what I like best about the FR.

I also enjoy the magic of the world. I don't mean the ease of obtaining powerful magic, but the little magic items most worlds don't include. For example, I love that they have Travel Cloaks. You would think Travel Cloaks would be common fair in most D&D worlds. Only the FR takes the time to include little magic items that add flavor to the game in my experience.

FR really goes out of its way to develop a world where magic has literally altered the development of society and commerce. I feel this aspect of magic is often overlooked. In a world as magical as a standard D&D world, magic would have a major effect on the shaping of the economy,military and government of a country. That is definitely evident in the FR.

I also find it amusing that the FR is chock full of names pulled from Tolkien's work like Aglarond and the High Dale. You can see that Tolkien had a strong influence on Greenwood's FR. (I always felt that was one of the reasons elves were as tall as humans in the FR.)

I have too much experience playing in the FR to list. Suffice it to say that the FR has been the world I have most enjoying campaigning in.


One thing that I have always found strange though is the number of gamers who refer to the FR as a munchkin world. Can someone who feels this way explain why FR is viewed as a munchkin world?

I'm just going to post first then read through all the other replies, so forgive my laziness if I'm just rehashing others' comments.

My initial exposure to FR was the 3e FRCS from WOTC. I had pretty much skipped 2e entirely (I wasn't playing much during those years, and when I was, it was mostly RQ & GURPS). I bought it because I wanted a detailed setting that would give plenty of background material to help character & story development. So I set up a campaign in the Silver Marches & off we went.

When I look at pregenerated campaign settings I'm mostly looking for flavor. I want to read about the game world and say, "Wow! That's cool. I wouldn't have thought of that." and "That should lead to some interesting situations for the party." FR gives you that in one sense because it's so freaking BIG. There is something for everyone. Someplace in Faerun there is a region or a town or a race that will give the DM or player(s) what they are looking for.

Which, of course, became one of my problems with it.

I ended up feeling that the world was too generic. It was so inclusive that it lost any "realness" to me. Also, I like a slightly lower magic campaign. If I had been more familiar with FR from the start, I would have know this was the wrong setting for me to run.

My wife (one of my players) absolutely LOVES the setting. Her Moon Elf Ranger is her all-time favorite character. I've bought several of the FR supplements and received 1 or 2 as gifts (I think Lords of Darkness may be the only major one I'm missing); but after this current adventure where the party is discharging a geas to repay a resurrection, I won't run Faerun again. I'll give the books to my wife so if she ever wants to DM, she can run a FR campaign.

The novels are ok, but I keep them separate from "My Realms." I see them as someone elses camapign. However, seeing the angles that bob, troy, ed and eline take does give me ideas forsome things. Eds Elminster, while heavily influenceing my elminster is NOT the same Elminster. IMC Elminster's motives are always under question.

Aaron.

Re: Re

Celtavian said:

One thing that I have always found strange though is the number of gamers who refer to the FR as a munchkin world. Can someone who feels this way explain why FR is viewed as a munchkin world?

Click to expand...

I think it is because of the hih ammount of magic in the realms. The chances of running into a commoner sometimes seem pretty low. Lots of people have levels. And since magic is supposedly more abundant, there are a lot of magic items in the mix. So you get characters with lots of magic, making them unstopable.

My thoughts on this are several:

1)The DM controls the world and how the players will percieve it. I constantly have the grunt and the common man interact with my players. In thier eyes, there are tons of common people.

2)The DM regulates the magic. Seems like every NPC has some magic hugh? Well, lots do because a lot used to be adventurers or people that worked in magic. However, I again use the common man. Most people in Faerun know that magic can be pretty dangerous. Even stuff that seems minor turns out to be pretty bad. Think of it like people think of motorcycles today. Everyone knows they are fun, but everyone knows they are also very dangerous when certain precautions are not taken, and even then it is still dangerous. Most people don't like motorcycles because of the danger involved and avoid them. I think the realms common folk are the same way with magic. They will watch it, they will stand next to it, they might use it as a tool of some sort a little, but they will almost never ever have a desire to use magic. So magic turns up more where adventurers, mechants and travellers use it. Thus inns on the trade ways and cities will be more magical.

3) If magic is so prevalent that your PCs are armed to the teeth with magic items and are "unstopable" then it seems to reason that other villans will have equal or greater magic. Especially if they are set up with a network or organisation. Still even your greater solitary undead are going to have more magic on thier little finger than your party.

It hink those are the concerns with munchkins in the realms. I think that most people never really took in the full scope and their first exposure to the realms was durring the time of troubles. And so it was regarded as a munchkin setting cause you had mortals killing gods and Elminster helping the party etc.

Aaron.