D&D 5E Why FR Is "Hated"

[Demetrios1453]

I can see the Raistlin/Elminster comparison but not the Mordenkainen one. Mordenkainen wasn't killing gods, making love to gods, etc.

As far as the countries and their histories, I dislike the execution in FRealms. It read like some guys who don't know history just tossing stuff together. Gygax's short treatment of the history of the Flanaess feels much more like an old-fashioned myth/history. The FRealms socio-political dynamics are wonky. If you don't sit around and read history books for fun and work it's probably easier to overlook.

Interestingly, I love both FR's and Greyhawk's histories. But then again, I read real-life history books for fun, so that's just my thing..

 

[KahlessNestor]

Here I have to kinda disagree on principle, in that while I'm not real big on 3e's idea of everyone having levels (5th-level commoner just doesn't do it for me, sorry) I do believe that anyone in the game world who does things that would normally accrue xp to a played character should get those xp notwithstanding.

Obviously this is all "off-screen" and no DM is expected to track the xp totals of every soldier or pickpocket or lab mage...but those people can still gain levels, albeit at a much slower pace than the average adventurer.

So, if you do a tour of duty in the Queen's army you might come out as a 0th-level fighter (you did your basic training but by sheer luck never happened to see any action), or as a very low (1st or 2nd) level fighter (you stuck it out for a while, got into some battles and survived), or even as a slightly higher level (3rd-5th) level fighter (you put in a lot of years, saw a lot of action and did some risky or heroic things whether by choice or necessity, survived, maybe got a field promotion or two).

Similar examples can be drawn for most other classes.

Lanefan

I guess I was taught something different. PCs are special and the only ones with levels.

Sent from my SM-G900P using EN World mobile app

 

[Shasarak]

I guess I was taught something different. PCs are special and the only ones with levels.

Does not really make any sense to me and on the other hand it is your game.

 

[prosfilaes]

All of the countries and their histories are what is distinctive about the Realms. The powerful NPCs are not what make it distinctive. They're nothing more than names. Elminster is the same as Raistlin who is the same as Mordenkainen, and so on. Powerful wizard again?!?!? Nothing distinctive about that.

Right, fantasy Egypt and fantasy Ireland are what is distinctive about the Realms. Elminister is hardly the same as Raistlin; one's an all-good wizard with great stats whose in bed with the Gods (literally), and the other is a neutral hero turned evil known for his lousy health who killed the Gods until some timey-wimey stuff happened and he was convinced not to because it would destroy the world. You said that Elminster in the front of the FRCS is the sage telling the story; well, the sage telling the story of Dragonlance is Astinus. (Sheesh, reminds me of the Ed Greenwood article in the Dragon where he wrote Dalamar as a drow from the Underdark. He's a high elf turned evil, not from a non-existent Dragonlance Underdark.)

Especially after reading all those Dragon articles by Ed Greenwood, what I remember about the Realms is Elminster. I think everyone pounding on "5E is different" is missing the fact that it's still the Forgotten Realms, so it still carries all those old feelings, and "Forgotten Realms but we've blown up half of it" doesn't sell it to someone who didn't really like FR in the first place, and I don't see why it would sell it to anyone.

 

[Maxperson]

Right, fantasy Egypt and fantasy Ireland are what is distinctive about the Realms. Elminister is hardly the same as Raistlin; one's an all-good wizard with great stats whose in bed with the Gods (literally), and the other is a neutral hero turned evil known for his lousy health who killed the Gods until some timey-wimey stuff happened and he was convinced not to because it would destroy the world. You said that Elminster in the front of the FRCS is the sage telling the story; well, the sage telling the story of Dragonlance is Astinus. (Sheesh, reminds me of the Ed Greenwood article in the Dragon where he wrote Dalamar as a drow from the Underdark. He's a high elf turned evil, not from a non-existent Dragonlance Underdark.)

Especially after reading all those Dragon articles by Ed Greenwood, what I remember about the Realms is Elminster. I think everyone pounding on "5E is different" is missing the fact that it's still the Forgotten Realms, so it still carries all those old feelings, and "Forgotten Realms but we've blown up half of it" doesn't sell it to someone who didn't really like FR in the first place, and I don't see why it would sell it to anyone.

Super powerful wizard is super powerful wizard bud. They are the same to this discussion. The exact details are not important.

 

[prosfilaes]

Special snowflake characters should be special exceptions not the rule otherwise they loose their uniqueness.

Why should they be unique? Why shouldn't adventuring clerics be rare? Why shouldn't adventuring wizards be mostly escapees from the the apprentice system? There's a lot of possible choices here, more than just "the only way to raise levels is to get XP the same way PCs do." (And that is one, entirely valid, choice, of course.)

 

[MackMcMacky]

Super powerful wizard is super powerful wizard is super powerful wizard. Just because Mordenkainen didn't have direct dealings with gods doesn't mean that he's not a super famous, super powerful, super influential wizard on par with the others.

That's valid. I personally like it, but I know that it's not everyone's cup of tea.

Mordenkainen hangs out with some gnomes far away from the cities and isn't particularly active in game supplements. His name is everywhere but that's about it.

 

[Satyrn]

I guess I was taught something different. PCs are special and the only ones with levels.

Sent from my SM-G900P using EN World mobile app

Heh. When 3e came out with its "NPCs and PCs (and Monsters!) use the same rules" philosophy I thought it was a big, cool improvement on AD&D. It was neat how all the characters in the game were modelled the same.

But I got fed up with it. Now, I don't want the NPCs modelled in any greater detail than I need. I absolutely do not need to know what class an NPC, or their level. I have no interest in their XP total. I don't even need to know what skills they're proficient in. I will rarely care what any of their ability scores are, either. Because it simply doesn't matter to me.

I do not want NPC statblocks. I can describe a blacksmith in a few words - let's say "garrulous veteran, meticulously groomed" - and know everything (well, except his name!) I need to run him as an interesting character.

I wish I had never got sucked into that part of 3e philosoohy, but I'm glad I escaped from it.

 

[Shasarak]

Why should they be unique? Why shouldn't adventuring clerics be rare? Why shouldn't adventuring wizards be mostly escapees from the the apprentice system? There's a lot of possible choices here, more than just "the only way to raise levels is to get XP the same way PCs do." (And that is one, entirely valid, choice, of course.)

Because the game world is full of adventure and people should be adventuring rather then sitting around in a circle together singing kumbaya.

 

[prosfilaes]

DMs who run the Realms but don't have high-level NPCs as a continual presence in their game are basically running their games wrong, which kind of goes against basic gaming etiquette...

So you come onto a thread about "Why FR is hated" and when people say it's because of how the high-level NPCs are portrayed in the books and how they think they would logically behave in the games, you tell them they're all wrong, and they're the one's breaking basic gaming etiquette. Shouldn't the right to dislike a setting without being told how wrong you are be a part of basic gaming etiquette? And if you think that limits conversation too much, I think you're going to have to tolerate people telling you the way you're running FR is not the way the books describe it.