Why *Dont* you like Forgotten Realms?

[Aldarc]

If I had to guess, Ed's primary motivation for implying that FR characters are sexually active, even experimenting with or preferring partners of the same sex, probably has more to do showing that they're "real" people than writing about his sexual fantasies. I don't think Ed was trying to shock readers or make a statement; rather, I believe he just wanted to add another "layer" of believability to these characters and the world.

I'm an adult, and sexually active in RL, and my characters have occasionally had sex in RPGs, too; therefore I don't see it as an issue, really. And it's not as if Ed Greenwood is the only fantasy author whose books contain implications of sex; even Pratchett's Discworld novels do. So far I haven't seen a single passage in Ed's novels that I would call "icky", so I cannot fathom why you're making such a big deal out of it, especially as you claim to dislike the setting for more significant reasons.

I am happy that you are a sexually active adult in real life, but let us be clear. The issue at hand is not that characters have sex or even that sex is explicit or implicit in the setting/campaign. The matter is the nature of the sexual dimension. It is not so much believable as it is trashy eroticism. The characters may be "real," but it does not come across as real. It comes across as a creepy brand of sexual wish-fulfillment that you would expect out of a porno or the mind of a horny, hormone-driven teenager. I do not think there is anything particularly believable about Elminster in a hot tub filled with 'hawt' drow women or some of the other tales.

Yes, other fantasy authors have sexual wish-fulfillment fantasies in their works, and that is just as problematic when it happens. I am not sure what pointing to these other sources is meant to accomplish apart from showing how prevalent the problem is in fantasy. But pointing to the prevalence of a problem does not lessen the problem.

 

[Diamond Cross]

Player expectations mainly. Many posters have complained about the annoyance of having players who know the Realms better than they do, and the constant clash of expectations that results. Once you start changing stuff, you're asking these players to keep two separate models of the Realms in their heads--the "canon" Realms and your version--and inevitably they're going to get mixed up.

It's not a problem I've had to deal with, at least not in this context, but I can easily imagine how it would happen.

The thing is that problem can come from any published setting though.

 

[Corathon]

OK, I didn't read the whole thread - too long.

I actually liked the first FR boxed set, and the first round of products that followed. The things that I don't like are fairly standard complaints:

a) Power inflation. At first, FR seemed a relatively low-powered game world, but after a while high level (and very high level) characters seemed to be everywhere. Especially wizards.

b) RSEs. Way too many Realm-shaking events, often driven by things in the novels (of which I was never a fan).

 

[Alzrius]

Except I posted prior to Celebrim disappearing. My points are different from Celebrim in other matters as well. I will drop this, but I hope that you would be able to see how disrespectful it is to make this accusation and how personally insulting it was to me.

I disagree with how seriously you're taking it. But so long as you're dropping it.

For the ancient world, the existence of the gods was a matter of fact and not faith. Do you deny the destruction of the storm? You have denied the wrath of Zeus and Poseidon. They saw the hand of the gods in everything and everyday life. They believed the gods walked among them. It does not make it true, but as far as their perceptions of the world, it was the same as that of Forgotten Realms. It is not about fact, but the worldview.

But that's not applicable to the game world because for a fantasy world, it's about facts, not worldview. Certainly, worldview is an element worthy of consideration too, but the actual facts of how the world - and its deities - operate is more important than how it seems to operate to the in-game characters who don't know better.

So to did the gods of our historical past, or at least how people saw them.

See above.

It must have cut off. There was not much left in that thought though. Just that they do not behave as a pantheon.

Sure they do - they have political disputes, personal squabbles, in-fighting and alliances. It just doesn't come with a familial bent.

And if all I wanted was the "notation" then you would have a point, but that is not as I have tried explaining to you before. I am merely telling you that you underestimate the value of this notation and its implications. Berna, as I am sure you looked up, did have myths to her name that did involve some of these meager "notations."

And I think you're overestimating them - I posted why before, regarding moving the burden of world development off of the designers and onto the DM. Implications are nice, but insufficient.

Because one is all you need, and I do not want have to repeatedly buy additional sourcebooks and novels for the potential of small snippets of character development, though you may beg to differ with your MORE MORE MORE approach.

You're getting snippy again. Cease to do so.

One such opportunity is all that's needed, but only if it avails itself of that opportunity to its fullest - rarely is that done in the context of a single such opportunity. More often, it's missed, or not taken full advantage of, and so further development is necessitated.

And I do not believe that the deities are well-developed in FR. What development there is in FR feels lackluster and motivated not by character development. You may not like that freedom, but I as a DM do like that, as do others, and that does not make it bad material. It makes it material that is not to your preferences. If you do not want mystery, then FR is the setting for you. You need MORE MORE MORE. I prefer just enough to get my imagination going and to know how to use well. These different styles are all the more suggestive that Forgotten Realms is not for everyone.

I've highlighted the areas here where you're putting words in my mouth - something that you've done repeatedly over the course of the discussion. If you can't stop doing so, then I suggest you cease replying to my posts. Don't make it personal.

What you call "mystery" is simply your personal preference for less developed material so that you can do that development yourself. However, not everyone likes that (sound familiar, here?) and some prefer that when paying someone for a pre-made setting, its elements are fully developed.

And it's obvious that FR isn't for everyone - nothing is for everyone.

It is no more nebulous than anything else we are talking about. "Sufficient" is exactly that, "sufficient" enough for the use of the DMs and players. Is it any more nebulous than "good character development"? The Time of Troubles struck me as completely ridiculous and nonsensical from start to finish. I saw that as anything but good character development. The entire matter was almost a farse. And it also introduced the terrible character of Cyric. Then there was the Spellplague, which you yourself admit was unnecessary. There were three pantheons between four editions. How many times do you need to kill the goddess of magic? The Time of Troubles and the Spellplague effectively kicked many players and DMs in the balls and ran running.

It may come as a shock to you, but there are many elements of FR that I don't like - hence why I don't play in the setting and never have. However, I've always admired that it developed the world and its characters to the extent that it did.

If for nothing else, I appreciate that it presented more options, because I believe it's better to have something and not need it than need it and not have it. That is, I like that there's an existing option I can use or ignore at will, rather than find it missing and so need to create it myself if I want to utilize it.

I am not sure if that's hardly fair when other people in this thread have expressed their own issues involving exactly that problem. Furthermore, the quality of those novels does detract from the setting for me. I personally cannot stand the Forgotten Realms novels. They, along with the Dragonlance novels, represent some of the most pastiche, poorly-written, cliche, fantasy dribble created. And these qualities just ooze all over the setting.

That's a personal problem you're describing. If you find that reading the novels creates such a stain on your imagination that the entire setting as a concept is ruined for you, that's not the fault of the material. I've read plenty of bad FR novels myself, but that doesn't sour me on the entire campaign; it just sours me on those novels.

And it's certainly fair to say that canon-lawyers have only as much power as the DM wants them to have - those can be irritating to deal with, yes, but as a problem they're fairly easy to solve by just denying them what they're dragging into your game.

Nothing is stopping you from disagreeing with my preferences. But I am not sure what purpose it solves in this thread. I dislike Forgotten Realms as it does not live up to my preferences for a setting. What is there to disagree with? Do you disagree that it does not meet my personal preferences? Do you disagree that it has qualities that are not to my liking? What can you possibly say that will make me change my mind?

I really don't know what makes you think I want to change your mind - I have no such goals, nor have I ever expressed anything to that end.

That said, if you find this discussion to lack a purpose - and please note that every question you asked above is perfectly applicable to yourself and not just me (save for flipping the preferences around) - feel free to cease participating in it.

Again, I find this somewhat debatable as to whether or not the deities were showcased well. And keep in mind that not all character development is good character development. Plus, in order to see this character development, one has to invest in the novels and additional sourcebooks, but the sourcebooks reference the novels. Where is that good character development from the get-go?

I won't deny that not all character development is good character development - keep in mind that I've said that previously.

Likewise, "investing" in the novels doesn't need to be monetary; one can read them in the library, borrow them from a friend, sit in the bookstore and read them and then put them back on the shelf, and even download them illegally (despite how distateful that option is).

Further, the sourcebooks may reference the novels, but rarely do so without at least summarizing that which they're referencing; it's not as though they say something happened in a book without saying what.

I'd like there to be good character development from the get-go also, but when that doesn't happen I don't believe that the answer is to give up on the setting as a whole.

The expansion material in the form of setting sorucebooks are not the problem though. I am telling you that I dislike the "World as Written," the canonical world. DMs can change bits and pieces here and there, but it does not change this canonical world. And when the canonical world changes every edition, then these complications are compounded and conflated by the constant reordering of the canon. But to me, the canonical setting is so lackluster to my tastes that I have no urge to rewrite it at all. It lacks any theme or setting unity. It is a generic mishmash, and its reception history as a setting supports this assertion. The Grey Box had plenty of potential as a setting, but I am still waiting for this potential, just like I am waiting for this good character development in the pantheon.

But you seem to have made it clear that the expanded material itself is what you have a problem with - in other words, from what I understand, your issue isn't with the quality of the expansion material, so much as it is with its very existence. And that's an attitude that I personally don't care for - you may not like the quality of a work, certainly, but saying that it never should have been made is beyond the pale.

Historical pantheons do not go against the grain of most campaign world's internal consistency. This is a bogus claim, because it presumes that most campaigns have deities that behave as they do in Forgotten Realms. The Sovereign Host exists (though it is more ambiguous), but they do not behave as they do in FR. Please take a look at Book of the Righteous so you can know exactly what I am talking about. The book is highly lauded as one of the best d20 products. And it very much proves that active, living deities that mirror historical pantheons does not go against the grain of most campaign worlds. It does not invalidate internal consistency or believability.

I don't have the book, but I'll see what I can do. That said, I don't think that it presumes that most campaigns have deities that behave as they do in FR.

From the FR Wiki: "Tyr was originally intended to be a greater god in the 4th edition pantheon of the Realms but was removed in mid-development and replaced with Torm, mainly due to fan reactions towards Tyr's slaying of Helm in The Grand History of the Realms."

I remember reading about that when it happened - it's an exception that proves the rule, mostly because fan reaction doesn't seem to usually have very much impact on design and development (save for long-term decisions like "how do we write the rules for a new edition").

Again, "they simply wanted to reduce the numbers for the sake of simplicity" is an acknowledgment of how the decision was motivated not by characterization but by notation and bookkeeping.

I already said they wanted to reduce the number of deities for the sake of simplicity, so I don't see why you're mentioning it again. We're discussing characterization more than complexity - though I do personally find that more complex characters are the ones who're usually multi-faceted.

But not in my vernacular.

Okay.

 

[Nymrohd]

To add what I don't like about the Forgotten Realms, it has to be the crappy literature. There are a few good writers in the novel lines but the majority is from mediocre to downright crap. Seriously because you can write a few hundred pages doesn't mean you should. I cannot say more because it will start sounding personal and I am a very harsh critic when it comes to literature.

 

[Dausuul]

The thing is that problem can come from any published setting though.

Oh, sure. But the more lore the setting has, the worse it gets. Hence people saying Forgotten Realms is too detailed.

 

[Swedish Chef]

To add what I don't like about the Forgotten Realms, it has to be the crappy literature. There are a few good writers in the novel lines but the majority is from mediocre to downright crap. Seriously because you can write a few hundred pages doesn't mean you should. I cannot say more because it will start sounding personal and I am a very harsh critic when it comes to literature.

This I agree with. I stated earlier in this thread that WotC novels (heck, most novels written for RPGs, video games, TV series, etc) are similar to Harlequin Romance novels. The authors basically follow a simple template for plot progression and fill in the details with their choice of character, location and macguffin.

But I don't hold the Realms responsible for bad literature. It is prevalent throughout the publishing industry. Just pick up any Star Trek, Star Wars, Halo, Warhammer, whatever you like book, and odds are it will be sub par or trite and hackneyed.

 

[Philosopher]

Both. (Helpful, aren't I?)

Yes, actually. It reminds me that there are more than just two options.

The main reason I run a kitchen-sink world is that I can zoom in to any point and change the major themes of a campaign dramatically while retaining the themes of the world as a whole. I can up the incidence of wizards or elves by focusing on an area where they're more common, for instance, but I don't have to model the whole world around the idea that they're dominant.

The things I mention above are sufficiently important to me that I prefer them in any D&D game I play, but within those parameters I'm still running three different games off and on: a swashbuckler inspired by Renaissance Italy, a weird fantasy game in a Gormenghast-like city cut off from the Outside, and a gothic horror-themed fantasy a la Ravenloft and Castlevania. I find them sufficiently different that it's delightful swapping between them, but I also enjoy the continuity that comes from them all being expressions of the same overall world.

Sounds good. My current homebrew (still in the early stages) is heading in this direction.

I'm probably going to be dog piled for this: because they aren't forgotten.

The old grey box had a feel of being "forgotten", both in terms of seeing the remains of old empires and in terms of newly encountering a land that has been forgotten (the setting itself). More recently, however, it's had more a renaissance feel, which doesn't quite match the name of the setting.

I like most campaigns outside of FR and Greyhawk. But let's hit my homebrew.

Religious is ambniguous - no tiresome Hellenistic pantheon. Kingdoms all have their quirks and their cultures are largely based on real life ones - no "I can't believe it's not Tolkien!" elves. The setting is largely uncivilized and there's no small amount of wilderness and old ruins of a bygone and more powerful era - and there's a good reason for them being there, too. There's full societal advancement throughout history. There are no "good" or "evil" countries - everyone is doing what they feel is best, even if it involves doing something horrible. The setting is low magic civilization with high magic "outside;" no archmages and high clerics in every village. The adventurers aren't just random yahoos that are prolific for no given reason, there's an active and politically involved guild of explorers. There IS a theme, and it's very 1600's Age of Discovery based.

Everything I mentioned here is the opposite of what it's like in Forgotten Realms.

Thanks. Now that I have an idea of what you do like, I have a better understanding and appreciation of why you dislike the Realms. You're right, what you've got is quite opposed to what the Realms is about.

 

[Barastrondo]

Well, speaking for myself, the reason I brought up Piers Anthony was because he is a much more respected author than a "gaming writer" like Ed Greenwood, and from what little I read of his work, he was a little more overt in sexual references than anything I read in Greenwood's novels, and I never heard Anthony attacked for that stuff. I certainly don't think comparing one novelist to another is "weird equivalence".

Conversely, I see Anthony getting criticized a lot for his work (particularly the sexuality between older men and prepubescent girls that pops up in more than one book). More over at RPGnet than here, mind, but I can certainly say that I've seen people discuss Anthony's work with even more disapproval than Greenwood's.

 

[GregChristopher]

Attempting to get back on topic.

I actually like FG, but if I had to gripe I would say....

1. The demographics are inherently unsupportable by the technology level. No way that piece of land is supporting multiple cities with 200k+ population

2. Way too much magic. It cheapens it to a degree.

3. It is not Forgotten for very long. Everyone remembers a lot and they know more about the world than their characters really should, undermines the GM and taints the experience, in my opinion.