Why *Dont* you like Forgotten Realms?

[Hella_Tellah]

Of Sues Best Unspoken - RPGnet Forums

Man, if that counts as perverted, count me among the most vile and debased gamers around. Most of my games are around DC Vertigo level of Mature, because real people do fun stuff without clothes sometimes. We don't describe things as they happen at the table, because, well, eww, but certainly I've had background plot points in my settings that could compete with that example.

One thing I've gathered from this thread is that I like the original vision of the Realms a lot more than TSR's version. I'd be a lot more likely to play in the Realms if it were a little less like Disney's Hercules and a little more like HBO's Rome.

 

[athos]

I dislike FR for a couple of reasons.

1st) Players have all read the books, so whenever you try and change something, they all complain about it. The players think it is their world and not yours.

2nd) The world is too overly developed. If you try and put something different in, it seems to conflict with some book or another. Once that happens, you have 15 freaking metagamers breathing down your neck telling you why you aren't "doing it right".

3rd) Those bastards over at WotC killed off Living Greyhawk for LFR, enough said...



I once made a game where I used the FR map and nothing else, that was acceptable to me. It is truly a beautiful map.

 

[Silverblade The Ench]

In RL, folk DO have very peculiar love lives, you'd be surprised or maybe not, and I won't go into for "grandama" rules etc, so why the heck shouldn't that be shown in D&D for goodness sake? jeesh.

sorry to burst folks' bubbles, but there are people out there who engage in polyamoury and orgies etc. It's nothing new, the lying hypocrisy and hidden, horrendous abuses of the Victorian era etc was the perversion, really.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

There is already a role playing game for that. It is called F.A.T.A.L. I choose not to play that one when I play D&D.

 

[Psion]

Man, if that counts as perverted, count me among the most vile and debased gamers around.
(...)
One thing I've gathered from this thread is that I like the original vision of the Realms a lot more than TSR's version. I'd be a lot more likely to play in the Realms if it were a little less like Disney's Hercules and a little more like HBO's Rome.

In RL, folk DO have very peculiar love lives, you'd be surprised or maybe not, and I won't go into for "grandama" rules etc, so why the heck shouldn't that be shown in D&D for goodness sake? jeesh.

sorry to burst folks' bubbles, but there are people out there who engage in polyamoury and orgies etc. It's nothing new, the lying hypocrisy and hidden, horrendous abuses of the Victorian era etc was the perversion, really.

Maybe I haven't sufficiently clarified what my objection here is. It's not that there are sexual aspects to the setting (for sufficiently mature audiences), but that little things like this come across as Ed's way of using authorial authority to insert himself in conjured sexual boasts via uber-GMPC, and I find it extremely cheesy in a "nobody over 15 should be doing this" way. Not only does Ed find it convenient and amusing to introduce us to Elminster from poolside with his nubile drow babe, but he's friends with all the hawt sorceresses of the realm. Oh yeah, and he had a fling with the goddess of magic.

It's almost as if "Joey Fusco Jr." from While You Were Sleeping took up running and writing RPGs and randomly inserted in his cliche accent "You meet this hot sorceress. By the way, yeah, I'm doin' her!"

 

[Alzrius]

Alzrius, I admit that you have presented me with a daunting challenge by splicing up my post as much as you have done. It has become a wall of text. This is typically a sign, once a discussion comes to this point, that the discussion is close to an end or a standstill. I hope you do not mind if I lump together similar points collectively.

It's fine with me, though I don't think the discussion necessarily has to come to an end or standstill. I'm quite happy to keep debating the points raised here.

No. I consider lumping two people together and mocking that they are the same individual is rude and disrespectful to the integrity of both individuals. Assuming that two people on a forum as large as this are the same people simply because they share points of agreement is unreasonable and irrational. That is cheap rhetorical baiting.

I really don't see how you think that was mockery to suggest that you might be an alternate name for Celebrim. Also, the size of the forum is an irrelevant point - we've had individuals here with over ten different user names, posting as different people. Finally, it wasn't just that you two share points of agreement, as I noted previously.

Calling it cheap rhetorical baiting is itself cheap rhetorical baiting. Please stop engaging in it.

The thing is that the historical perception is not different from the FR perception: the gods are real. They talk to the priests and walk among the people. They have children with mortals. They push their own agendas using mortals as the playthings. Humans can rise to become gods. They wield vast power and control the various aspects of nature and civilization. Except FR does not explore the full implications of how such deities would impact the world setting. That detracts from its believability and internal consistency. I would expect a different approach to religion than how it is practiced in the realms.

The historical perception and the fantasy perception are not at all equivalent - the former is a matter of faith, the latter is a matter of fact. People might have believed that the gods walked among them and such, but that didn't make it any more true than believing that the sun revolved around the Earth made that true.

Even overlooking the relative nature of "exploring the full implications" of something, it does have believability and internal consistency, because we see the gods there as active players in the world, shaping it and where it goes instead of passively sitting back and being shaped by it.

I still stand by my belief in the one-dimesionality of the pantheon. You call them flowers, but they look, feel, smell like artificial flowers to me. They do not behave as

You do realize that you just trailed off in the middle of a

Did you not bother to read my restatement? I am arguing that you are being unfairly dismissive of the "notations" and their implications. If there are active deities in a setting, then I want both aspects to be present. And my preference is for these gods to already have myths to their names. Being able to list family relations among gods is frequently indicative of such myths, especially when combined with the rote notations provided in sourcebooks.

I did read your restatement, though it doesn't seem as though you can say the same thing for mine. It's not dismissive to characterize such notations as bringing almost nothing to the setting, because they're not actually presenting us with very much at all - you're reading into them to find more myths and backstory, which is fine for you, but that's the DM writing more material into the world; it's not the material standing on its own.

And I disagree heartily - it's what the campaign setting establishes that shows the development of the world. A campaign sourcebook could talk about the fall of a god from grace, or the shift of a god's portfolios over time and their shifting allegiances. None of this requires that the setting is repeatedly shaken up per edition for development. New sourcebooks could allude to this gradual corruption or redemption, or even noteworthy things the deities have done in the chronological gap between sourcebooks. But it is more than possible to have well-developed characters at the launch of a setting. Kaius, the King of Karnnath, in Eberron only needed one sourcebook to be a multi-dimensional character. One book is all you need to create a well-developed and multi-dimensional character.

I'm less concerned with how much material is needed for good characterization than I am with having good characterization at all. I simply find that, given more opportunities over time, characters tend to develop more. It's fine if a character isn't well-developed right from the start, because later materials can step up and fill in the gaps. What I don't understand is why you seem so intent on disliking anything that doesn't do that right out of the gate.

I am not advocating extremes. What you are reading is the middle ground between ambiguously absent gods and overtly active gods. I would hope that these gods would be sufficiently developed. Good characterization is also not limited to constantly shuffling the pantheonic deck. Hints can become something much greater and explored at the leisure of the DM. They can decide how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Pushing the burden of development onto the DM is not, however, the mark of good material. Good material presents the DM with developed characters to begin with, rather than failing to do so and leaving the DM to fill in the blanks.

"Sufficient" development - a nebulous term if ever there was one - is more than just noting a few familial relations. And FR's divine changes couldn't really be called "constantly shuffling the pantheonic deck." Beyond the Time of Troubles, there's only the Spellplague (which I certainly think was unnecessary) that constitutes any major pantheon-wide changes. The rest is happenstances for individual deities or small groups of individuals.

And when players are more familiar with the setting and gods because they have read them and you, the DM, have not? It becomes a different sort of rules-lawyer - the canon-lawyer.

As numerous others have pointed out, canon-lawyers have only as much power as the DM allows them to have. It's hardly fair to say that the novels actually detract from a setting because they arm these canon-lawyers at the expense of the DM.

If you are curious about my preferences and my position, then all you have to do is ask about what you want to know.

I should also add that, from what I know of your position, I disagree with it and am attempting to explain why.

The difference is that one establishes a well-developed tool that the DM can use without the immediate threat of losing that tool to a novel or new sourcebook that completely rewrites the setting. I prefer to have the character development from the get-go once I pick up the soucebooks and not have to wait for novels or the next edition to get a well-developed character.

The DM is never under "immediate threat" of losing anything - expansions and new material don't invalidate the DM's ability to create or change anything they want in their game. This is a position of DM impotence that I've never understood. I personally like having new materials that put greater emphasis on various parts of a campaign, but I've never understood why people feel hamstrung by such things; just ignore it and move on.

That is acceptable.

I'm glad.

Then I apologize if I misunderstood. [/qote]

Don't worry about it. That sort of thing happens in the heat of a vigorous debate.

They can be developed in a short amount of time, but from my estimation of the pantheon, that is not the case.

One's estimation is a personal thing, but I think they have been - if only from showing us various facets of the major deities again and again in various materials, we've seen them in various situations, showing various sides to their characters. How is that not development?

And that lack of necessity makes it all seem so silly and artificial, especially when there are plentiful other ways of character development apart from shuffling deities around.

Again, it's not like the pantheon is undergoing major changes every year. Crucible: The Trial of Cyric the Mad did a great job showcasing deities like Cyric, Mystra, and Kelemvor changing without changing the composition of the pantheon.

DMs are free to change anything, but they are still left with the "World as Written," and that is what we are discussing.

I agree; which is kind of why I wish you'd stop making the point that expansion materials constitute a threat to the DM.

But it is not a false analogy. It is not even an analogy it all. Citing real life religions have served me quite well in this thread, as they are clearly suggestive that FR does not have what I want in an active pantheon. They do not feel like gods. They do not feel like a pantheon. While the pantheon had potential in its start, it lost its appeal to me through its lack of good development as opposed to the obviously meta-reasons for its development.

I wouldn't say it's served you very well. You've made it clear that you want fantasy deities to be just like historical pantheons from the real world. That's fine, but it goes against the grain for most campaign world's sense of internal consistency - historical pantheons evolved the way they did because they didn't actually exist to make active changes. Fantasy pantheons actually exist, in the context of the game world, and so of course will be different in their conduct.

Exactly. Most of my homebrew settings have no gods at all, though it may feature beings and powers who are revered as such. I prefer ambiguity in my religions and pantheons. FR does not have that in its pantheons, so I do not prefer FR as a setting. I do not entirely mind active gods, but they must be done right and well. For me, FR does not do so.

That's all well and good, but it's hardly merit for claiming that active deities - or at least those not done "right and well" - are poorly developed. Especially since you seem to be of the opinion that "right and well" consists of active deities being as inactive as possible.

One of the problems is that in regards to FR, amongst other settings as FR is arguably not alone in this, is that it is questionable as to whether this is the case at all - that the more is truly qualitative. And I do not think that it is the case.

I'm not saying that more will necessarily result in qualitative development; just that it provides greater opportunity for doing so. Not every opportunity will pan out, maybe even most of them won't, but if you don't have more to begin with, those opportunities become fewer and more far between.

The material that does develop them reads as poor character development. From a meta-standpoint, it is obvious that it is not character development which drives the wheel but the notations and book-keeping. One of the criticisms of the FR pantheon in 3E was how hard the book-keeping was for players and some DMs. Is it any surprise then when the 4E FR book significantly trimmed down the number of deities and reduced minor ones to exarchs?

I don't think the reduction of the pantheon in 4E necessarily had anything to do with the nature of the deities' development in 3E - they simply wanted to reduce the numbers for the sake of simplicity, true, but how they as characters had been portrayed didn't affect that that I can see.

Apologetics is not an insulting term, nor do I consider it one or use it as such. An apologist defends a position through reasoned explanation. You are defending Forgotten Realms. How am I mistaken in using this term?

The term is largely used in the current vernacular as a colloquialism for those who are trying to smooth over something that is unpalatable, offensive, or gauche. None of which is the case here.

 

[the Jester]

Re: Greenwood's creepiness- while I agree with those that say he's pretty icky from all accounts that I've heard (including some first-hand ones of some ladies), I don't hold that against his work as a whole.

HOWEVER, since it seems like he can't consistently keep his ickiness out of his work, I do hold it against those pieces of his work that have the creep-ick factor in them. (The aforementioned DotU "Hey lookit my hot Drow babe in a pool" moment is a great example.) And it certainly doesn't improve my opinion of his writing, design or dming skills.

Don't get me wrong; I've got nothing against sex in game. There's prolly more of it imc than in the vast majority of campaigns. But I don't feel the need to use my DMPC as an ego stroke and publish it for all the world to see, and I find Greenwood's tendency to do that to be... well... icky.

 

[Diamond Cross]

A good looking scantily clad babe in a pool is creepy?

 

[Psion]

A good looking scantily clad babe in a pool is creepy?

Since a real drow maiden is probably concealing a dagger of venom or a horde of water spiders or something under the surface, scary might be a better term.

In Ed's fantasy, drow maidens aren't scary, but horny. It's the fact that you are in Ed's fantasy that's creepy.

 

[Cor_Malek]

Oh man, I get this feelings that if some folks were to read Red Dragon, they would feel compelled to burn the book quite fast. And poor old Harris shortly thereafter, possibly interrupting him cooking.

Besides - porn, anyone? In a book you at least only read about faint idea of intercourse as opposed to actually watching it, apparently rarely being creeped out about who's and by whom performed fantasy it is. And with no offence meant, but many (most?) fantasy books (and thrillers, detective stories and the lot) need to boost themself with some well-placed literary erotica, and much like with cigarettes, let's not kid ourselves at what age-group those are aimed at.

As to coming as icky to the ladies. Well, put same words in mouth elder, silver-haired man with long beard and a muscular, savvy actor, and let's see if both would be called creepy. Just sayin'.