D&D 5E Why FR Is "Hated"

[Morrus]

Why don't people just REMOVE THE NPC'S that they don't like???? In no way is Drizzt or Elminister INTEGRAL to what the Forgotten Realms are.

Because they're TOO BUSY TRYING TO FIND THE CAPS LOCK KEY!

 

[Demetrios1453]

Because they're TOO BUSY TRYING TO FIND THE CAPS LOCK KEY!

Caps Lock aside, it is a valid question though. There are a significant number of posters in this thread whose posts indicate that they believe that a FR campaign consists of nothing more than characters accompanying Drizzt and Elminster while they do everything for the group. I assume the party is supposed to mainly applaud and squeal in excitement and delight while they do so. It's a bit frustrating to have to refute this viewpoint over and over again...

Sent from my VS987 using EN World mobile app

 

[Morrus]

Caps Lock aside, it is a valid question though. There are a significant number of posters in this thread whose posts indicate that they believe that a FR campaign consists of nothing more than characters accompanying Drizzt and Elminster while they do everything for the group. I assume the party is supposed to mainly applaud and squeal in excitement and delight while they do so. It's a bit frustrating to have to refute this viewpoint over and over again...

Sent from my VS987 using EN World mobile app

Well, they're exaggerating, obviously. What they're actually saying is that FR isn't their cup of tea. A thing that doesn't need to be refuted. Some folks like the other settings more.

 

[schnee]

Caps Lock aside, it is a valid question though. There are a significant number of posters in this thread whose posts indicate that they believe that a FR campaign consists of nothing more than characters accompanying Drizzt and Elminster while they do everything for the group. I assume the party is supposed to mainly applaud and squeal in excitement and delight while they do so. It's a bit frustrating to have to refute this viewpoint over and over again...

But after you refute it, then you still have a world that's more populated and politically defined than pre-WWI Europe.

The vast majority of Faurun sourcebooks I read consisted of a) NPCs, b) Political organizations, and c) Relationships and grudges between these NPCs and political organizations.

B O R I N G.

I'd rather run OD&D, or 4E 'Points of Light', with some crazy broad-brush ideas that held a lot of seeds of adventures to be taken, mysteries to be explored, and blank spaces to be filled in.

Faurun reads like the CIA World Factbook. I'd rather have a hand-drawn map, with the northern area dubbed 'The Howling Wastes' with the hastily-scrawled note of 'Beware, at night, the Ice Wights come'.

 

[Lanefan]

Meta-Power-Gamers for the Win? Seriously, I don't know why you treat Eberron's political landscape as if it were a hack 'n' slash dungeon crawl.

"Kill 'em all and let the gods sort 'em out" is often a good starting point for many adventurers and their parties...though in a setting where the gods aren't, the sort-'em-out part might be more problematic....

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

Forgotten Realms: We have DROW!!!!
Greyhawk: Yeah. I had drow before you hit puberty.
FR: But we have DROW!!!! <reverb>drow...drow...drow</reverb>
GH: Um....
FR: And, they worship LOLTH!!!! She's an icky, evil SPIDER GODDESS!!!
GH: Who was introduced in an adventure set over here.
FR: The DROW live underground in, um... THE UNDERDARK!!!!
GH: Which is?
FR: It's a whole world underground. And it's DARK. That's why it's called the UNDERDARK!!!!
FR: There's also a big DROW CITY in the UNDERDARK.
GH: Oh, kinda like the one in the original adventures?
FR: Nope. This on is filled with DROW!!! And, it's in the UNDERDARK!!! We call it MENZOBERRAN!!!
GH: Ooookay, then.
FR Fan: Oh, look, they have DROW and an UNDERDARK. Plus, there LOLTH. The Realms are so cool.
GH: WT actual F?

FR: But these Drow go to 11.

 

[Lanefan]

But after you refute it, then you still have a world that's more populated and politically defined than pre-WWI Europe.

The vast majority of Faurun sourcebooks I read consisted of a) NPCs, b) Political organizations, and c) Relationships and grudges between these NPCs and political organizations.

Sourcebooks from what era?

I ask because if you pretty much ignore everything and anything that came after the original gray box, FR is really not that bad of a setting. There's enough detail in the gray box to get you going without being overwhelming, and loads of blank space on the maps for you to fill in as desired.

What wrecked it, IMO, is all the blurge that came afterwards. Every new version has less blank space on the map and more details to get bogged down in, and more history/backstory that some players might expect you to adhere to.

Lanefan

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well, they're exaggerating, obviously. What they're actually saying is that FR isn't their cup of tea. A thing that doesn't need to be refuted. Some folks like the other settings more.

I don't refute anyone's opinion....I can fully understand that FR is not everyone's cup of tea, for a variety of reasons. I'm not even that crazy about it myself, although I use it in my game. It's kind of bland and generic, relying heavily on Tolkien (which many settings understandably do).

However, I don't think it's wrong to question some of the reasons that I've seen given in this thread.....especially those that seem to be more about something the DM or group has to choose to use in their campaign.

I mean, looking at the 5E products, Elminster hasn't shown up at all, has he? I think the closest example of this is Bruenor showing up in Out of the Abyss, but in that he serves as an employer/quest-giver to the PCs and isn't actually involved in any adventuring.

So I find it odd to see that as one of the complaints. Especially since in pretty much any campaign setting, the same kind of thing can happen....Mordenkainen, Raistlin, Rikus and Sadira....there are always powerful NPCs in a campaign setting. If a DM decides to make the NPCs more important than the PCs, that's more about bad DMing than a bad setting.

 

[Morrus]

I don't refute anyone's opinion....I can fully understand that FR is not everyone's cup of tea, for a variety of reasons. I'm not even that crazy about it myself, although I use it in my game. It's kind of bland and generic, relying heavily on Tolkien (which many settings understandably do).

However, I don't think it's wrong to question some of the reasons that I've seen given in this thread.....especially those that seem to be more about something the DM or group has to choose to use in their campaign.

I mean, looking at the 5E products, Elminster hasn't shown up at all, has he? I think the closest example of this is Bruenor showing up in Out of the Abyss, but in that he serves as an employer/quest-giver to the PCs and isn't actually involved in any adventuring.

So I find it odd to see that as one of the complaints. Especially since in pretty much any campaign setting, the same kind of thing can happen....Mordenkainen, Raistlin, Rikus and Sadira....there are always powerful NPCs in a campaign setting. If a DM decides to make the NPCs more important than the PCs, that's more about bad DMing than a bad setting.

I don't think the FR needs people to leap up and valiantly defend its honour. But yeah, geek culture is geek culture. Someone had a go at me for using an iPhone not an Android the other day. I assumed they had shares in Google.

 

[schnee]

Sourcebooks from what era?

I ask because if you pretty much ignore everything and anything that came after the original gray box, FR is really not that bad of a setting. There's enough detail in the gray box to get you going without being overwhelming, and loads of blank space on the maps for you to fill in as desired.

What wrecked it, IMO, is all the blurge that came afterwards. Every new version has less blank space on the map and more details to get bogged down in, and more history/backstory that some players might expect you to adhere to.

Lanefan

I got into it in 3E. Which means I can't speak to the early setting (didn't even know about it, really), and I think it's safe to assume we're in agreement about later on.