D&D 5E Why FR Is "Hated"

[Seramus]

I would disagree. I've played and run in the Forgotten Realms since 2nd edition and it's never been a problem unless someone decided to make it a problem. Usually the DM being to enamored of the NPC's they read about in the novels or supplements.

If you feel that you have to tell your players what all the high level NPC's are up to at the beginning of each adventure, and the players are feeling discouraged...that's not really a problem with the setting.

And I disagree with your disagreement. In the best possible way! You see, I think you are both doing it wrong, and doing it right. Doing it wrong in the sense that FR really does have so many heroes that... they really are nearby. Your characters really are hearing about them all the time. They really are are that common and in many cases that powerful.

But you're also doing it right, because what's best for your players is to throw that crap out the window and run it your own way, and do what keeps the players happy. Which is the best kind of doing it right.

But this is mostly a Pre-5E issue.

 

[Caliban]

And I disagree with your disagreement. In the best possible way! You see, I think you are both doing it wrong, and doing it right. Doing it wrong in the sense that FR really does have so many heroes that... they really are nearby. Your characters really are hearing about them all the time. They really are are that common and in many cases that powerful.

Maybe in your games. I can honestly say that's almost never been the case in FR games I've played. (Fanboy DM's can be a problem in any setting.)

But you're also doing it right, because what's best for your players is to throw that crap out the window and run it your own way, and do what keeps the players happy. Which is the best kind of doing it right.

Didn't really have to throw anything out with the window. The NPC's stayed where they were and didn't bother us unless we wanted them too.

 

[Seramus]

Didn't really have to throw anything out with the window. The NPC's stayed where they were and didn't bother us unless we wanted them too.

Right. But what I'm saying is that they wouldn't. That's out of character for them. The NPCs wouldn't stay where they were (with some more likely to meddle than others). But keeping them away was the right decision to maximize the fun of your players.

You were playing them wrong. But your game was better off because of it.

 

[Maxperson]

Does that apply to the Gods?

Why would it apply to gods which are entirely different than human? Does it apply to rocks? Does it apply to a twig? Why ask why?

I never played in 3.5 but I have seen stat blocks for the various deities at one point or another, and they are listed as like Wizard 20/Thief 15/ Fighter 5 or ridiculous things like that. Did they actually start at level 1 and go one adventures with the other gods to fight goblins at level 1?

That they have class levels does not mean that they came into existence and gained them in the same way that morals do. That said, the ones that started as mortals and earned their way into becoming hero deities and demigods gained them through adventuring. The ones who started as mortals and were just granted godhood because X, such as Midnight, Cyric and Kelemvor did not gain all of them through adventuring. The ones born or created as gods just gained them from being gods. The same rules do not apply to gods as the ones that apply to mortal races.

One of the weird things with the level system is that it is both a measure of experience and of power for the players, but for a lot of NPCs it is almost strictly a measure of power. That's something I found fascinating when someone mentioned a character who was level 3, unless she was in her temple, then she was level 20.

It's purely a measure of experience and power for the PCs and NPCs(depending on edition and rules used), not the players. If player experience played into it, I couldn't have a PC under 20th level. I've been playing the game for far too long.

And frankly, I want to steal that "different levels in different places" idea. Just not sure what to do with it yet.

I think I missed that one. I don't know what you mean.

 

[Maxperson]

Or choose another campaign setting. That is a perfectly valid option.

Absolutely. I like magic items to be fairly rare, and permanent magic not to be commonplace. That kills Eberron for me, so I've never bought a single book.

 

[Maxperson]

"In comparison" is entirely relevant to Aldarc's point, which was spelled out for you in the very post you quoted. The high-end NPCs listed can't go out and solve the problems instead of the PCs: If they are even aware that there is a problem, they might be trying to hire the PCs to solve it.
Given its Eberron, they might even be working against the PCs instead.

So no: they aren't going to overshadow the PCs simply by virtue of being high-CR creatures living in the same setting. Compare, as was suggested to you, to Forgotten Realms where there are several high-CR beings known to actively solve problems by doing essentially what the PCs can do, only better.

A single high level PC can do everything the PCs can do for the vast majority of their career. Did you think PCs just start at 15th+ in level? Perhaps for the occasional campaign the DM allows that, but I've played very few where I started at higher than 5th, and the vast majority were 1st-3rd at starting level. The PCs are going to be overshadowed for almost the entire time the campaign is played, even in the campaigns with only a few high level NPCs.

 

[Caliban]

Right. But what I'm saying is that they wouldn't. That's out of character for them. The NPCs wouldn't stay where they were (with some more likely to meddle than others).

*shrug* We'll have to agree to disagree. Your opinion on what is or is not in character for NPC's in a campaign you aren't running or playing in...isn't really relevant.

Now, if you are the DM and are controlling the NPC's, then you can make them be interfering busybodies all you want. I still say that would not be a problem with the NPC's, but rather with how the DM chooses to use them.

But keeping them away was the right decision to maximize the fun of your players.

You were playing them wrong. But your game was better off because of it.

No, I played them exactly right. Your perception of the role of NPC's is flawed. They don't actually exist, they have no free will, they are just there to help the story. If their presence isn't needed for the story or adventure...then they aren't there. (If there is a Realm's Fanboy among the players and I think they'd like it, I might have a notable NPC do a cameo along with an explanation of why they can't get involved in whatever is going on, but that's about it.)

All of which is kind of moot, since I now use my own homebrew setting. There are still legendary NPC's, but most of them are either dead or in positions of authority and not gallivanting around having adventures. That's what the PC's are for.

 

[ccs]

Right. But what I'm saying is that they wouldn't. That's out of character for them. The NPCs wouldn't stay where they were (with some more likely to meddle than others). But keeping them away was the right decision to maximize the fun of your players.

You were playing them wrong. But your game was better off because of it.

I'm the DM. NPCs, just like any other element of the world, do whatever - I - want them to.
They do NOT function autonomously. They are not controlled by some script written by, or believed by others.

 

[Seramus]

*shrug* We'll have to agree to disagree. Your opinion on what is or is not in character for NPC's in a campaign you aren't running or playing in...isn't really relevant.

Very true!

No, I played them exactly right. Your perception of the role of NPC's is flawed. They don't actually exist, they have no free will, they are just there to help the story.

It's more like portraying Zeus as someone who totally respects women. It's probably a really good idea to do that. The alternative is really unpleasant. I can't recommend enough a tasteful interpretation that keeps everyone at the table comfortable.

I'm the DM. NPCs, just like any other element of the world, do whatever - I - want them to.
They do NOT function autonomously. They are not controlled by some script written by, or believed by others.

Absolutely! But when a character has a canon characterization, and your depiction dramatically deviates from that canon characterization, and you don't have a suitably good Watsonian explanation, you're not really using that character anymore. Just the name. And in some circumstances (like the ones being described here), that's a good thing! Some canon characterizations are detrimental to a good game.

 

[Maxperson]

Right. But what I'm saying is that they wouldn't. That's out of character for them. The NPCs wouldn't stay where they were (with some more likely to meddle than others). But keeping them away was the right decision to maximize the fun of your players.

You were playing them wrong. But your game was better off because of it.

You're both right and wrong. You're right that the NPCs wouldn't be just sitting there, but wrong that they would be a problem for the PCs. They would be engaging each other in their own plots that the PCs have nothing to do with, leaving the PCs as the only ones to handle their own world shaking stories and events.