D&D 5E Why FR Is "Hated"

[MackMcMacky]

If we're going to discuss context, then let's discuss context. Elminster is a sage. He talks a lot and gives out advice. Modenkainen on the other hand is a very active adventurer. Which one is more likely to overshadow the PCs? It's not Mr. Talksabunch. Citing more examples of Mr. Talky Talky talking to PCs in adventures doesn't mean he is more likely to overshadow the PCs. The guy who is a mover and shaker of the world, actively engaging bad guys is more likely to overshadow the PCs.

You also have to consider that the DM determines what the NPCs actually do. A DM may have Mr. Talky Sage O'shadowdale become more active in the world, or he may have Mordenkainen retire to a cottage in the mountains and never be heard from again. Those modules you mentioned are ones I've never run, which means Elminster never actually did them in my Realms. They are only suggestions that some DMs may engage in.

Ultimately, whether NPCs overshadow PCs or not has nothing to do with how they are officially portrayed in the material. Nothing at all. It's 100% how the DM portrays them in the campaign.

You have a fundamentally confused idea of what Mordenkainen does. Unless someone is playing earlier in the timeline than is suggested, Mordenkainen has a stronghold called the Obsidian Citadel. He spends a lot of his time there with his gnome buddies and his henchmen. I can't think of a single module where he actively does anything. I don't have all of them but I have a bunch of them.

And you are back to your mantra of leave it out. And I get that. The problem for me is there is not much left to use if I leave all the stuff out I dislike. I don't have one thing I don't like about Forgotten Realms. I have many. The point about Elminster is you and another poster wanted examples of Elminster being used "muscularly" in published products and I delivered. Again, your posts attempt to isolate something I say, wring context out of it, and dismiss it after you've built a straw man.

And you just literally did what I pointed out. You label in an attempt to oversimplify and avoid qualitative details and differences.
Elminster may be a "sage" but he doesn't simply set, IN THE PUBLISHED MATERIAL, and answer a few questions for some coin. Mordenkainen may be an "adventurer" (or rather "was" an "adventurer") but what is he actually doing? Playing Freeholder and musing on esoteric and magical things. It's clear he is described as reluctant to interpose whereas it is obvious that Elminster is portrayed as very busy manipulating events.

Your labels are weak sauce.

 

[Shasarak]

Historically, archaeologists are a recent phenomenon, and either got out of the way of violent people or had armed people trained in violence surrounding their camp. Archaeologists were not warriors, and when they were rescued, were rescued by military, not archaeologists.

From what I understand about the Assyrian Empire (circa 2500BC to 600BC) they were pretty big on the old Archaeological standard of breaking into your temple and stealing your stuff to take back home for display purposes. So hardly a recent phenomenon.

That's an incredibly brutal setting you have. In the Forgotten Realms, there's gods like Milil and Deneir and Oghma who would be remiss if they spent too much time on fighting instead of what their god is all about. Leave the violence to Tyr and Torm and Helm.

Of course it is brutal - have you read any of the DnD adventures? Full of Cults, Demons, Vampires and now Undead Dinosaurs coming soon to a Jungle near you.

Even Deneir had the Priest Cadderly Bonaduce adventuring after his more peaceful brethren got killed by a Vampire.

I just wonder what all the bad guys are doing in your settings that all these peaceful people can even survive?

 

[Maxperson]

You have a fundamentally confused idea of what Mordenkainen does. Unless someone is playing earlier in the timeline than is suggested, Mordenkainen has a stronghold called the Obsidian Citadel. He spends a lot of his time there with his gnome buddies and his henchmen. I can't think of a single module where he actively does anything. I don't have all of them but I have a bunch of them.

You aren't understanding. It doesn't matter if you have a module where he does anything or not. He is in fact an adventurer, being a former PC. He adventures unless something official comes out and says he doesn't, or the DM says he doesn't. He's sort of like an arrow fired from a bow. It's going to continue on until something stops it or it reaches the end of the line. Mordenkainen isn't dead, so the end of the line hasn't come, and nothing has happened to stop his adventuring trajectory.

And you are back to your mantra of leave it out. And I get that. The problem for me is there is not much left to use if I leave all the stuff out I dislike. I don't have one thing I don't like about Forgotten Realms. I have many. The point about Elminster is you and another poster wanted examples of Elminster being used "muscularly" in published products and I delivered. Again, your posts attempt to isolate something I say, wring context out of it, and dismiss it after you've built a straw man.

It's not so much leave it out, as don't put it in. I'm also talking about the high level NPCs, not so much the rest of the history. If don't put in the history and the NPCs both, you really don't have much left.

I've also not Strawmanned you at all. I'm not saying your position is other than it is. I'm saying it's not particularly relevant, because the DM is in charge of how it plays out in his game. Nothing in any module has any relevance unless the DM puts that module into his game unaltered.

Elminster may be a "sage" but he doesn't simply set, IN THE PUBLISHED MATERIAL, and answer a few questions for some coin. Mordenkainen may be an "adventurer" (or rather "was" an "adventurer") but what is he actually doing? Playing Freeholder and musing on esoteric and magical things. It's clear he is described as reluctant to interpose whereas it is obvious that Elminster is portrayed as very busy manipulating events.

In the setting material, Elminster isn't active. He's just a powerful sage. Modules are not canon. What a module does or does not do doesn't affect the setting at all unless the DM decides it does. You're better off using the Simbul as your example as she actually does affect the setting on an active basis and she's more powerful than he is.

 

[Hussar]

It's interesting that you bring up Caderly [MENTION=94143]Shasarak[/MENTION]. That's one of the few FR books I actually have read. Although, it was a LONG time ago and I don't think I read all of them. Wasn't there something about a killer yo-yo in those books?

Anyway, think about what you just said though. Cadderly is the exception. Most of the priests don't adventure, and never did. Yet, funnily enough, there were higher level clerics than Cadderly at his temple. How did they gain levels? They specifically weren't adventurers, so, what did they kill or loot in order to gain several thousand xp points to go from 1st to, say, 3rd level.

Just to roll this back to the idea of NPC's using PC rules. [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] spells it out pretty well. In AD&D, sure, you could use NPC rules for a humanoid (and only a humanoid - sorry, no class levels for your beholder), or, you could kinda sorta just bolt on some PC abilities onto an NPC, or, as was the much more common case, you could use a unique stat block.

3e changed all that. Not only did you have the option of adding class levels to everything, but, all monsters were built using the classes as a template. A 4HD monster used the type of that monster to determine pretty much everything - stats plus stat boosts from levels, skills, number of feats. Advance that same monster 4 more HD, and it was the same as adding 4 levels. Monsters are a class in 3e. Gaining HD in that monster type is exactly the same as gaining levels in a class.

AD&D was far less codified and far more organic. You gave the monster X HD, because it was supposed to be that tough. Those HD only affected THAC0 and saving throws. The special abilities of the monster were not in any way tied to HD. It was all very ad hoc and guesswork. For example, you might see something like HD:12+2-7 - a purely arbitrary number. You cannot do that in 3e. Well, you can, but, not by the rules.

So, no, NPC's certainly were not governed by PC rules in AD&D. 3e is the outlier here in that it tried to codify NPC's.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

In the setting material, Elminster isn't active. He's just a powerful sage. Modules are not canon. What a module does or does not do doesn't affect the setting at all unless the DM decides it does. You're better off using the Simbul as your example as she actually does affect the setting on an active basis and she's more powerful than he is.

Hang on. I think this might help to cut through the misunderstandings here. [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], what material do you consider to be canon in Forgotten Realms? Because I think the issue here is that some people consider anything with a Forgotten Realms branding on the cover to be canon - be it books, video games, RPG supplements, doesn't matter. But, I'm getting the sense that maybe you are using canon in a more specific sense.

So, can you specify what you mean by canon? What is included in Realms canon?

 

[Shasarak]

It's interesting that you bring up Caderly [MENTION=94143]Shasarak[/MENTION]. That's one of the few FR books I actually have read. Although, it was a LONG time ago and I don't think I read all of them. Wasn't there something about a killer yo-yo in those books?

Anyway, think about what you just said though. Cadderly is the exception. Most of the priests don't adventure, and never did. Yet, funnily enough, there were higher level clerics than Cadderly at his temple. How did they gain levels? They specifically weren't adventurers, so, what did they kill or loot in order to gain several thousand xp points to go from 1st to, say, 3rd level.

I love Salvatores books because you can tell that the NPCs are actually leveled up properly doing the stuff that you would expect them to be doing, yeah Salvatore really comes from a DnD background.

So what did happen when those 1st to 3rd level Clerics went up against a Vampire? Well exactly what you would imagine would happen - it turns out the Cook is a bad ass Fighter who has to get the band back together again. They should really make a movie about that.

But it turns out there is a significant difference between being a higher level Priest and being a higher ranked Priest which becomes obvious once the Vampire has cleaned out the 95% of people that did not have levels. It is like the old saying goes: When the tide goes out you can tell who was swimming naked.

Just to roll this back to the idea of NPC's using PC rules. [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] spells it out pretty well. In AD&D, sure, you could use NPC rules for a humanoid (and only a humanoid - sorry, no class levels for your beholder), or, you could kinda sorta just bolt on some PC abilities onto an NPC, or, as was the much more common case, you could use a unique stat block.

3e changed all that. Not only did you have the option of adding class levels to everything, but, all monsters were built using the classes as a template. A 4HD monster used the type of that monster to determine pretty much everything - stats plus stat boosts from levels, skills, number of feats. Advance that same monster 4 more HD, and it was the same as adding 4 levels. Monsters are a class in 3e. Gaining HD in that monster type is exactly the same as gaining levels in a class.

AD&D was far less codified and far more organic. You gave the monster X HD, because it was supposed to be that tough. Those HD only affected THAC0 and saving throws. The special abilities of the monster were not in any way tied to HD. It was all very ad hoc and guesswork. For example, you might see something like HD:12+2-7 - a purely arbitrary number. You cannot do that in 3e. Well, you can, but, not by the rules.

3e certainly changed monster design but how is that relevant to creating NPCs? Is a Lvl 3 spellcasting Beholder the new definition of a NPC now?

So, no, NPC's certainly were not governed by PC rules in AD&D. 3e is the outlier here in that it tried to codify NPC's.

The most significant outlier was probably 4e but 5e has much the same "monster" NPCs design ethic.

 

[MackMcMacky]

You aren't understanding. It doesn't matter if you have a module where he does anything or not. He is in fact an adventurer, being a former PC. He adventures unless something official comes out and says he doesn't, or the DM says he doesn't. He's sort of like an arrow fired from a bow. It's going to continue on until something stops it or it reaches the end of the line. Mordenkainen isn't dead, so the end of the line hasn't come, and nothing has happened to stop his adventuring trajectory.

It's not so much leave it out, as don't put it in. I'm also talking about the high level NPCs, not so much the rest of the history. If don't put in the history and the NPCs both, you really don't have much left.

I've also not Strawmanned you at all. I'm not saying your position is other than it is. I'm saying it's not particularly relevant, because the DM is in charge of how it plays out in his game. Nothing in any module has any relevance unless the DM puts that module into his game unaltered.



In the setting material, Elminster isn't active. He's just a powerful sage. Modules are not canon. What a module does or does not do doesn't affect the setting at all unless the DM decides it does. You're better off using the Simbul as your example as she actually does affect the setting on an active basis and she's more powerful than he is.

What has apparently been lost to you are the claims I am making. You are trying to make them fit what you are concerned with which sort of does create a bit of a straw man.

I have been very clear. I dislike multiple NPCs in FRealms. I dislike the role of multiple NPCs in FRealms modules. Now, for you, running a campaign setting may be divorced from the modules but, in my case, it's a bit more organic. I don't care if modules don't mean anything to you. The fact that the approach to modules is so very poor for so long in FRealms products is certainly not a selling point.

What amazes me is that you have consistently said, 'Just don't use this or that'. That is hardly a ringing endorsement to use a supplement. I don't want to use a campaign world where I need to ignore most of the supplied NPCs, ignore most of the modules, tone down the priests, ignore all the cataclysms, and have to rewrite a significant amount of the historic/political/social details. The map isn't particularly compelling. Mapping a large continent isn't a particularly difficult thing.

There is simply no reason for me to run Forgotten Realms and 'leave all that stuff out' or make Elminster just a sage. There is no value in that. I can and have made up my own names and my own sages. I hardly need to make up my own sage and then borrow Ed Greenwood names. Either I run a published campaign setting where I leave a significant amount of stuff in OR I run my own creation. Forgotten Realms does not meet that criteria for me and many others. Therefore, your advice to leave this or that out isn't a solution. I'm not interested in "fixing" the Forgotten Realms. There isn't enough to attract me to do so.

And your 'Mordenkainen is an adventurer' angle is just weak. Give up on creating a label and pretending it means one thing and is the all-encompassing vision for a character. I can tell you this, when I use or create NPCs I don't reduce them to one label. That just isn't particularly interesting or sophisticated.

 

[Hussar]

Actually, 4e was a throwback to AD&D here. Sure, you could build an NPC using PC rules in 4e, but, it wasn't recommended and the advice was far more, "Build this like a monster". Which is exactly how NPC's were built in AD&D. 5e is simply continuing that same trend that was established in AD&D.

Put it another way. 3e was the only edition where ALL NPC'S were built using PC rules. There were no rules or guidelines given for "just make a monster". So, your master sword smith had to be a 6th level (or higher) commoner with the commensurate HP and attack bonuses. In 2e, a master sword smith didn't even need to be anything other than 0 level commoner with the Weapon Smithing NWP. In AD&D, he didn't even need to be that.

Remember how I talked about Village of Hommlet? In the village, over half of the inhabitants (again, mostly women and children) didn't even have a stat block. And that was quite common. Non-combatants didn't have stats at all. The Keep on the Borderlands module has all sorts of inhabitants in the Caves of Chaos that don't have any stats whatsoever.

IOW, if something isn't meant as a combatant, you don't bother giving it any stats. Same as 4e. If it is meant to be a combatant, then you choose between arbitrary stats, a sort of hybrid class/arbitrary statblock or actually give it PC levels if it's a humanoid. If it's not a humanoid, you don't give it PC stats.

 

[Hussar]

What amazes me is that you have consistently said, 'Just don't use this or that'. That is hardly a ringing endorsement to use a supplement. I don't want to use a campaign world where I need to ignore most of the supplied NPCs, ignore most of the modules, tone down the priests, ignore all the cataclysms, and have to rewrite a significant amount of the historic/political/social details. The map isn't particularly compelling. Mapping a large continent isn't a particularly difficult thing.

There is simply no reason for me to run Forgotten Realms and 'leave all that stuff out' or make Elminster just a sage. There is no value in that. I can and have made up my own names and my own sages. I hardly need to make up my own sage and then borrow Ed Greenswood names. Either I run a published campaign setting where I leave a significant amount of stuff in OR I run my own creation. Forgotten Realms does not meet that criteria for me and many others. Therefore, your advice to leave this or that out isn't a solution. I'm not interested in "fixing" the Forgotten Realms. There isn't enough to attract me to do so.

Shhh, quiet. Apparently pointing this out is trolling. We're all supposed to only use Approved Criticisms for saying we don't want to use the Realms. Anything else is just wrong... apparently.

 

[Maxperson]

Hang on. I think this might help to cut through the misunderstandings here. [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], what material do you consider to be canon in Forgotten Realms? Because I think the issue here is that some people consider anything with a Forgotten Realms branding on the cover to be canon - be it books, video games, RPG supplements, doesn't matter. But, I'm getting the sense that maybe you are using canon in a more specific sense.

So, can you specify what you mean by canon? What is included in Realms canon?

Only that which is specifically a setting or setting supplement. The novels are fun, but not canon. The modules are optional ideas for adventures, but are not canon. Video games are the same as modules. Now, if the novels or video game lore is placed into a setting later, it becomes canon at that point.