D&D 5E Settings played in D&D: cause or effect?

[Celtavian]

I am so freaking tired of FR. I've been playing in it on and off since the late '80s. Even back then it was too complex for me to know all of the parts without reading all of the novels and such. Trying to play a bard without putting in homework to read bunches of novels of wildly varying quality, ugh.

And the NPCs. Oh my god. Super powerful with divine backing that are willing to not do somethign so the players can adventure.

I've never RUN the Realms because I can't run a world that the players know significantly more about than I do. "Oh, that sigil means that the Red Wizards are involved, and since we're near myth drannor obviously they are looking for elven 10th level magic." "Umm, no, I just made up a sigil." or "Oh, we're near Waterdeep, have our characters heard rumors about the well in the inn or other means to travel to Undermountain or Skullport?" "Whoswhat to where?"

It's been patched and plastered so many times to make it Fresh(tm) and New(tm).

I actively dislike the FR. Seeing FR on a product is a turn off. (Luckily, 5e is such a great edition it doesn't dilute that.)

Try producing another setting early in release cycle for three editions of D&D and then compare the numbers. Because as Morris says, they are assuming correlation is causality and people are playing FR because they prefer it, and not even evaluating that only having one officially supported campaign may make have something to do with why it was picked.

Actually, I've got a possible test. Let's ask a bunch of Pathfinder players if they run in the Forgotten Realms. There is plenty of 3.x FR material that's easily compatible, and I'd hazard to say that many pathfinder players are either former D&D players or have played games that former D&D players have run. If FR is actually a popular setting, I would expect that we would see a significant number of PF players who have kept it.

I played Golarion when I played Pathfinder because all the APs are set in Golarion. Makes it easier to measure travel and have a sense of location.

I likely wouldn't play Eberron. I'm not a fan of Steampunk. I much prefer traditional D&D fantasy worlds based on a pseudo-Medieval, Tolkien inspired world that is mostly low tech with high magic. If D&D changed worlds and had a similar world, I'd probably play that because I enjoy having a sense of location in the game.

 

[Prism]

When we play a generic fantasy game then FR is a great example of this and so we base many of our campaigns/adventures in it. We make fair use of character trees to so there are often relationships of some type between one set of characters and another. We also mix up adventuring groups occasionally - a character from one group will adventure with another. For this kind of play its good to have a well established shared world with a lot of space to work in. We sometimes use Greyhawk but there is more established background for FR to make use of.

We also sometimes build homebrew worlds for campaigns but only when the DM has a good idea and theme to work with. One of our DM's also tends to revisit Ravenloft a fair amount.

 

[delericho]

I think FR probably gained an unassailable position because of three key advantages it had in the mid/late-eighties:

- It was given a big push by TSR as their 'main' setting because at about the same time they were looking to de-emphasise Greyhawk (because Gary had left, but retained at least some IP rights in the setting). At that time, the choice was between FR and Dragonlance, but DL always had that one big story overshadowing everything else, while FR was more open - and so a better candidate for the main setting going forward.

- FR also benefited from Ed's absurdly-prolific imagination - any time TSR wanted to publish something, Ed could just open his files and there it was. By contrast, another setting needed material generated for it, which meant that FR felt more organic rather than manufactured.

- And then FR had the massive breakout hit "The Crystal Shard", and the Legacy of Drizzt that that spawned. (And Drizzt became even bigger in the nineties.)

Having attained that dominant position, FR simply retained it. New settings came and went, but none supplanted it - despite Dark Sun getting a big push back in 2nd Ed and Eberron in 3e.

(That said, that's possibly inevitable - FR is much closer to generic fantasy, and so more suitable for idea-harvesting by homebrew DMs. The others are much more idiosyncratic, which is actually a good thing for the settings, but probably makes it inevitable that they're lesser lights.)

At least, that's my thinking. I could, of course, be wrong.

 

[wedgeski]

I run one campaign in the Realms. We skirted over the face of things through Lost Mine, with the various faction choices made by the PC's as the only strong tie to the world other than geography. In starting Princes mixed with my own homebrew stuff, the world is beginning to emerge as more of a character in the show. And sorry naysayers, but SCAG has already been immensely helpful in that regard.

I suppose I could have just ripped it all out and relocated it to my homebrew, but it would've been a load of work for very little benefit.

I would never claim to be a Forgotten Realms DM, though. For me it's always been either Dragonlance or Other.

 

[fjw70]

WHY run a specific setting if not for the shared background with the players? "Hey, I'm going to run star wars". "Cool, and I play a Jedi?" "Well, nah no jedi, sith, smugglers, droids or the force." At that point, why put it in the Star Wars Universe? Same here. If you aren't going to cater to the FR parts, why play FR. If you're going to use FR as a shorthand so you can say "Cormyr" and your players immediately know what you are talking about, they'll have expectations such as the Purple Dragon Knights being around.

I run the FR now precisely since my players (my kids) don't know anything about it. To me FR is a map with place names and as much detail as I choose to use, and NPCs with backgrounds that I can either use or ignore.

 

[Uchawi]

I believe a DM will use whatever adventures are available for their homebrew, so in that sense it does not matter where the setting is at. Except for extremes like Dark Sun or even magic tech from Eberron. Therefore, more fantasy generic settings would tend to win the day like Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms. And if I had to choose a setting as a DM, I would choose Greyhawk because it has less bloat. But another key is how adventures are written so the story remains fairly neutral in regards to places or well known NPCs and let the DM choose. And finally there is the cost. I am much more willing to buy a short adventure, because if it is bad (based on experience), then I have less money invested to choose the next one.

 

[Minigiant]

The published setting I played most was Forgotten Realms mostly because it had the most books and the least amount of books "you had to wait for stuff you needed".

FR was very generic, had the most gamebooks, most storybooks, the most video games, the most popular and notorious NPCs in recent years.


If WOTC made an Azeroth book in 2002.... Azeroth would be more popular that the FR.

Which does the average gamer know more lore of?

The Forgotten Realms (D&D)
Azeroth and Draenor (World of Warcraft)

 

[Corpsetaker]

They more-or-less did this during 4e, with FR, Eberron and Dark Sun. Presumably FR sold best!

Yes and No.

This might have happened but you can't accurately use this because of several factors.

1: Buy the time Dark Sun and Eberron came out, people were walking away from 4th edition so naturally they wouldn't purchase anything after.

2: Forgotten Realms was the first setting published so of course it would have the most sales.

3: Lot's of people didn't like the two book format.

All this stuff is connected and can't be ignored. That is exactly how Wizards works when trying to justify what they want to do instead of what the customers actually want.

 

[Blue]

I know I'm running "Forgotten Realms" because I'm 41 with an adult job and don't have the time or inclination to homebrew a good campaign anymore. I use quotes because besides the map, pretty much anything lore-wise is a grab bag. I mean they already came across Threshold and met a noble from the Grand Duchy of Karameikos, so...

I run the FR now precisely since my players (my kids) don't know anything about it. To me FR is a map with place names and as much detail as I choose to use, and NPCs with backgrounds that I can either use or ignore.

Sounds like you're doing a homebrew that borrows liberally from FR. Without being bound to it. Hey look, I can take this map. But not that NPC. And I'll add this thing in from elsewhere.

 

[fjw70]

Sounds like you're doing a homebrew that borrows liberally from FR. Without being bound to it. Hey look, I can take this map. But not that NPC. And I'll add this thing in from elsewhere.

Yep. That's it.