D&D 5E Why FR Is "Hated"

[Yaarel]

For the DMs who homebrew the campaign settings ...

Of course, then you need to provide that same detail to the players, through a packet or a website or something similar.

Obviously, it is easier for the DM to supply the players ‘detail’, when the DM only needs to write a sentence or paragraph of flavor, giving the gist of how to fit in the mechanics thematically ...

rather than being forced to rewrite each and every rule, pages and pages, an entire book.



5e can do much to better support DMs that world-build.

 

[hawkeyefan]

You miss understand the problem if you think any of that is the solution. The player in no way had a problem with it he just was sure I was wrong... infact every time it came up he used the same passive BS I see in FR games all the time (and one of the reasons I hate running/playing the setting) "Yea in your world it's X, but in the real world its Y"

Next time someone says that, just say "um...in the real world there is no Titans Tower in NY or SF."

But I think I understand the problem...I simply think it's more of a player issue than a setting issue. And I think you do too...who was being passive aggressive, the player or the setting? The player's issue is because of expectations he has about the setting and being unwilling to alter those expectations, so the setting is a factor in the isse...but it still boils doem to the player just not being cooperative.

I played the old TSR Marvel game for years, and we had our stories take place in a version of the Marvel Universe, and everything went fine. My players were comic guys who had a good amount of knowledge about Marvel continuity, but I changed stuff all the time. It was never a problem beyond clarifying things for them when needed.

 

[Chaosmancer]

For the DMs who homebrew the campaign settings ...

Obviously, it is easier for the DM to supply the players ‘detail’, when the DM only needs to write a sentence or paragraph of flavor, giving the gist of how to fit in the mechanics thematically ...

rather than being forced to rewrite each and every rule, pages and pages, an entire book.


5e can do much to better support DMs that world-build.

Why do you need to rewrite the carrying capacity rules?

Or The pace and travel time rules?

Or action surge?

or the text of the Fireball spell?


You want a world without the divine and possibly you want to rewrite the majority of the races. Or, if you're happy with how gnomes are described in their mechanical entry, leave that one alone and move on to elves which clearly have some problems.


That is a lot of work, but you don't need to rewrite every rule, I'm sure sneak attack works the exact same no matter the setting and the Charlatan background doesn't have a lot of setting specific things within it.


But, if you decide that all wizards were created through an alchemical process that unlocks their magical potential instead of through long study of ancient tomes, you've got to tell your players that.



I mean, other than the cleric and paladin who fall squarely in you problem with DnD and the Divine, what rules do you need to rewrite that are so offensive? I literally cannot think of anything that absolutely needs to be changed to have a setting shift from one place to another in the pure rules.

 

[ccs]

Next time someone says that, just say "um...in the real world there is no Titans Tower in NY or SF."

But I think I understand the problem...I simply think it's more of a player issue than a setting issue. And I think you do too...who was being passive aggressive, the player or the setting? The player's issue is because of expectations he has about the setting and being unwilling to alter those expectations, so the setting is a factor in the isse...but it still boils doem to the player just not being cooperative.

I played the old TSR Marvel game for years, and we had our stories take place in a version of the Marvel Universe, and everything went fine. My players were comic guys who had a good amount of knowledge about Marvel continuity, but I changed stuff all the time. It was never a problem beyond clarifying things for them when needed.

Well, to be fair, comic book fans generally don't have a problem with multiple realities, alternate universes, & parallel worlds.
Hard core FR fans on the other hand....

 

[KahlessNestor]

Do I want a monotheistic campaign setting? The short answer is, yes. The long answer is, be careful what one wishes for. If the defacto definition of ‘D&D monotheism’ would be the DM is ‘God’ and decides what the Infinite thinks, then that too would objectionable. God is infinite; the DM is less so. Basically, Divine Infinity exists beyond the fabric of space-time, simultaneously past, present, and future. In a monotheistic game setting, the Divine normally intervenes only subtly and indirectly, because, the Divine desires humans to make the world a better place by means of human effort. The risk to humans is real. The good that humans do is real. Normally God is hidden. God is most ‘visible’ when other humans are doing good things. In other words, if the DM wants to supply the team with help via some NPCs or items whose opportune timing is ‘miraculous’, that can be fine and fun. But in terms of actual game rules, monotheism is part of the background flavor without any need for mechanical rules.



What I want from D&D, and what would make me happy, is a setting-neutral Players Handbook. On behalf of the player, and on behalf of the DM.

For the player, I want the player to always decide the spirituality of their own character. Like gender and sexuality, spirituality is an aspect of the deep identity of a reallife human. You cant mess around with the spirituality of a reallife player, unless you have permission from the player, and an opt-in from the player. Similarly, you cant force straight player to play a gay character, or a gay player to play a straight character. You can invite a player to experiment because they might find that entertaining, but if they say, no, it stops there, or the game becomes unfun for that player. You cant force a deeply monotheistic player to pretend to commit idolatry. It becomes unfun. It is nonnegotiable. The player needs a safe space to create a character on the players terms. I want any rules and flavor that the player consults in D&D to be gentle, and to support player choice.

For the DM, I want a setting-neutral Players Handbook. When I DM, I require this. When I create a homebrew campaign setting, I need the game rules to support by world-building DM style. It takes a lot of work to evoke the illusion of a world. I dont want players constantly consulting rules whose flavors and setting assumptions are *wrong*, contradictory and confusing. These disruptions ruin narrative immersion. They break the fourth wall, sotospeak, force meta-gaming, and ruin the vividness of the game. I use flavor to build a world, and am sensitive to flavor text. I find unwanted flavor impossible to ignore, and in the current 5e Players Handbook, the unwanted flavor is everywhere.

Compare how one might flavor psionics. If the official rules as written made every single psionic class and psionic power - even their baked-in mechanical rules - explicitly refer to Farrealms flavor, it would be a dealbreaker for many players, even players who would normally love psionics. As a DM, in order to create a homebrew setting where psionics is thematically meaningful, I have to be able to evoke the appropriate psionic flavor in that setting. I need the rules to at least be neutral. So I dont want to fight against every flavor intrusion on every page that a player opens up to consult its rules. Every single time.

I want real D&D products that *support* DMs who homebrew campaign settings. Especially the Players Handbook that the players must consult.

For both the player and the DM, I need setting-neutral rules. The player needs to define the character, and the DM needs to define the world. The rules need to support this fun that requires alot of work.

I have given up on D&D 5e. As-is,

Players Handbook → Forgotten Realms campaign setting assumptions → polytheism

For me the current PH, thus the 5e game, is unusuable.

Even if WotC put out a pdf, with the 5e Players Handbook content but with neutral rules, that would go a long way to support homebrew campaign settings.

They dont even need to call it ‘Dungeons & Dragons’, maybe call it ‘Quintessence’ (referring to the ‘5th’ edition and to the essential rules), a product line designed to support DMs who homebrew.

This...really doesn't make any sense to me. As a "deeply monotheistic player', I have no problems with the polytheism of D&D (any more than most modern monotheists have problems with the ancient Greek polytheism of the past). In fact. clerics and paladins are my favorite classes to play because of the religious flavor, allowing me to explore that. I put religious themes into my own homebrew world, including the fact that paladins and clerics MUST have a deity. There are no "philosophical" clerics. Even a very devout monotheist like Tolkien had his polytheistic pantheon, so I am not seeing the issue here.

 

[Hussar]

The part that baffles me is why is 5e being called out for this? I mean, D&D has always been polytheistic since day 1. Not a single edition of the game presumes a monotheistic setting. After all, there has never been a sense that every cleric in a campaign would be a cleric of the same diety. Heck, you can go right back to the Keep on the Borderlands, and you have the evil priest in the Keep that works with the cult in the Caves.

I'm honestly really confused about how you can point fingers at 5e for something that is just "D&D".

 

[Lanefan]

Do I want a monotheistic campaign setting? The short answer is, yes. The long answer is, be careful what one wishes for. If the defacto definition of ‘D&D monotheism’ would be the DM is ‘God’ and decides what the Infinite thinks, then that too would objectionable. God is infinite; the DM is less so. Basically, Divine Infinity exists beyond the fabric of space-time, simultaneously past, present, and future. In a monotheistic game setting, the Divine normally intervenes only subtly and indirectly, because, the Divine desires humans to make the world a better place by means of human effort. The risk to humans is real. The good that humans do is real. Normally God is hidden. God is most ‘visible’ when other humans are doing good things.

So the Divine is only visible when good is being done? Doesn't the Divine, if there is to be only one, have a mandate to support and encourage all nine alignments? If not, where and how do Evil (or even Neutral) Clerics get their spells and powers?

In other words, if the DM wants to supply the team with help via some NPCs or items whose opportune timing is ‘miraculous’, that can be fine and fun. But in terms of actual game rules, monotheism is part of the background flavor without any need for mechanical rules.

On this...and I suspect only this...we can agree.

What I want from D&D, and what would make me happy, is a setting-neutral Players Handbook. On behalf of the player, and on behalf of the DM.

The risk with that is it becomes dry as dust to read, thus turning potential players/DMs away from the game. Probably not a good idea.

For the player, I want the player to always decide the spirituality of their own character. Like gender and sexuality, spirituality is an aspect of the deep identity of a reallife human. You cant mess around with the spirituality of a reallife player, unless you have permission from the player, and an opt-in from the player. Similarly, you cant force straight player to play a gay character, or a gay player to play a straight character. You can invite a player to experiment because they might find that entertaining, but if they say, no, it stops there, or the game becomes unfun for that player. You cant force a deeply monotheistic player to pretend to commit idolatry. It becomes unfun. It is nonnegotiable. The player needs a safe space to create a character on the players terms. I want any rules and flavor that the player consults in D&D to be gentle, and to support player choice.

OK, let's flip this around: in your game, which I can only assume is monotheistic given what you've written, can someone play a Cleric to a different deity than that one?

Could someone, for example, play an Elven Cleric to Rillifane R'tillil?

For the DM, I want a setting-neutral Players Handbook. When I DM, I require this. When I create a homebrew campaign setting, I need the game rules to support by world-building DM style. It takes a lot of work to evoke the illusion of a world. I dont want players constantly consulting rules whose flavors and setting assumptions are *wrong*, contradictory and confusing. These disruptions ruin narrative immersion. They break the fourth wall, sotospeak, force meta-gaming, and ruin the vividness of the game. I use flavor to build a world, and am sensitive to flavor text. I find unwanted flavor impossible to ignore, and in the current 5e Players Handbook, the unwanted flavor is everywhere.

Then - and this is true of any edition of D&D, not just 5e - you have little choice but to rewrite the PH from scratch.

I have given up on D&D 5e. As-is,

Players Handbook → Forgotten Realms campaign setting assumptions → polytheism

For me the current PH, thus the 5e game, is unusuable.

What did you do during the runs of 1e (Greyhawk) - 2e (many settings) - 3e (Greyhawk/FR) - 4e (Nentir Vale/PoL), all of which have also been polythestic, even if in some (Dark Sun? Eberron) the deities were somewhat in the background?

Even if WotC put out a pdf, with the 5e Players Handbook content but with neutral rules, that would go a long way to support homebrew campaign settings.

The rules are by definition neutral. The flavour around them is also pretty neutral, all things considered.

Lan-"and it's not like there's not lots of different deities being worshipped in the real world - D&D isn't making all this up"-efan

 

[pemerton]

The part that baffles me is why is 5e being called out for this? I mean, D&D has always been polytheistic since day 1. Not a single edition of the game presumes a monotheistic setting. After all, there has never been a sense that every cleric in a campaign would be a cleric of the same diety. Heck, you can go right back to the Keep on the Borderlands, and you have the evil priest in the Keep that works with the cult in the Caves.

But maybe the evil priest and the cultists get their powers from demons and other dark beings that aren't gods . . .

Early D&D certainly presumed that clerics were (by default) Lawful which meant (roughly) good - so Chaotic "clerics" were labelled anti-clerics and the chief among them were evil high priests. And in original AD&D, it is very easy to treat clerics and paladins as (basically) mediaeval holy warriors, given their armour and weapon rules, their spell load-outs and related special abilities, etc. In fact it was often noted (eg in Dragon articles) that the cleric class wasn't a very good fit for polytheism because it seemed to make little sense that a cleric of the god of knowledge would use the same spells, armour and weapons as a cleric of the god of swords.

Of course druids were there from the early days, but they can easily be treated in the same way that many presentations of early mediaeval Europe handle the spread of Christianity - worshippers of the "old gods" and the spirits of nature whose power is now fading.

DDG presented numerous polytheistic options, but didn't have very substantial rules on how to integrate them with the cleric class. I think it's 2nd ed AD&D that really embraces the polytheistic idea with its specialty priests, spheres of priestly magic, etc. And then 3E and 5e continue this in a watered-down fashion with their domain rules. (4e went much more back to the classic approach.)

Even a very devout monotheist like Tolkien had his polytheistic pantheon, so I am not seeing the issue here.

The Valar aren't gods. There is only creator ("The One", Eru Iluvatar). The Valar are analogous to angels.

 

[Hussar]

While I believe invoking Tolkien in these discussions is pretty much analogous to Godwinning a thread, I'd point out that in the Hobbit and the LotR, religion plays pretty much zero part in the fiction. There are no priests, no churches, and, AFAIK, zero mention of any religion whatsoever. Granted the Similarian changes this and adds to it, but, if your knowledge of Middle Earth comes from the first two works, it wouldn't be hard to think that Middle Earth is pretty much godless. It's not monotheistic.

And, I tend not to pay a whole lot of attention to OD&D, to be honest. Moldvay Expert tells us this though:

... clerics obtain more spells of greater power, having proven their faith to their god or goddess... it is very important for clerics to be faithful to the beliefs of their religion and alignment. Should a cleric behave in a manner that is not pleasing to his or her diety, the deity may become angered... (it goes on to talk about building a stronghold at name level where if the cleric has been a good cleric, the cost is halved) due to miraculous assistance form the deity

So, it's pretty strongly implied there that we have polytheistic worlds right out of the gate.

Even Moldvay Basic states:

Clerics are humans who have dedicated themselves to the service of a god or goddess

And Acolytes are listed in the monster section as having any alignment.

Again, I'm completely baffled where this notion of monotheism comes from and how 5e is somehow different than pretty much anything that came before.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Do I want a monotheistic campaign setting? The short answer is, yes. The long answer is, be careful what one wishes for. If the defacto definition of ‘D&D monotheism’ would be the DM is ‘God’ and decides what the Infinite thinks, then that too would objectionable. God is infinite; the DM is less so.

The divine entity in the setting might be infinite, but the DM is the arbiter of the setting, and the non-player beings in it. If the divine gets involved in the game, it will be the DM making the decisions as to what happens.

Basically, Divine Infinity exists beyond the fabric of space-time, simultaneously past, present, and future. In a monotheistic game setting, the Divine normally intervenes only subtly and indirectly, because, the Divine desires humans to make the world a better place by means of human effort. The risk to humans is real. The good that humans do is real. Normally God is hidden. God is most ‘visible’ when other humans are doing good things. In other words, if the DM wants to supply the team with help via some NPCs or items whose opportune timing is ‘miraculous’, that can be fine and fun. But in terms of actual game rules, monotheism is part of the background flavor without any need for mechanical rules.

That might be true for one monotheistic setting. Others might be built off different assumptions as to the motivations and capabilities of the divine and their behaviour.

A monotheistic campaign setting would actually be quite interesting. It would be intriguing how it would have developed. The other settings at least can take their cue from real-world history and cultures as a starting point, but a truly monotheistic setting built on D&D assumptions could be pretty unusual. Do you currently run such a setting?

For the player, I want the player to always decide the spirituality of their own character. Like gender and sexuality, spirituality is an aspect of the deep identity of a reallife human. You cant mess around with the spirituality of a reallife player, unless you have permission from the player, and an opt-in from the player.

It is already up to the player to decide the spirituality of their character. Even if they want to worship a deity that doesn't exist in the particular setting the game is in, there is usually a pretty close match available. Or just none.

The only thing that I would flat-out ban in terms of character spirituality is a character explicitly following a current real-world religion. Not only does it have no place in a D&D world, I believe it would be too disruptive.

Similarly, you cant force straight player to play a gay character, or a gay player to play a straight character. You can invite a player to experiment because they might find that entertaining, but if they say, no, it stops there, or the game becomes unfun for that player.

Heck, I wouldn't/couldn't force a straight character to play a straight character etc either. Even sexless characters like warforged can develop gender identities and orientations.

You cant force a deeply monotheistic player to pretend to commit idolatry. It becomes unfun. It is nonnegotiable. The player needs a safe space to create a character on the players terms. I want any rules and flavor that the player consults in D&D to be gentle, and to support player choice.

Yep. If that player insisted on wanting to play a cleric I'd point them to the deities in the 5e PHB that aren't gods. If none of those clicked, its hardly difficult to reflavour to an alternative power source: just riff off the domain that the player wanted their cleric to have if needs be.

For the DM, I want a setting-neutral Players Handbook. When I DM, I require this. When I create a homebrew campaign setting, I need the game rules to support by world-building DM style. It takes a lot of work to evoke the illusion of a world. I dont want players constantly consulting rules whose flavors and setting assumptions are *wrong*, contradictory and confusing. These disruptions ruin narrative immersion. They break the fourth wall, sotospeak, force meta-gaming, and ruin the vividness of the game. I use flavor to build a world, and am sensitive to flavor text. I find unwanted flavor impossible to ignore, and in the current 5e Players Handbook, the unwanted flavor is everywhere.


I want real D&D products that *support* DMs who homebrew campaign settings. Especially the Players Handbook that the players must consult.

For both the player and the DM, I need setting-neutral rules. The player needs to define the character, and the DM needs to define the world. The rules need to support this fun that requires alot of work.

There needs to be some setting assumptions in the rules, which might require change for other settings.
For example the default D&D setting is generally set around a medieval-renaissance ish technology level (but without gunpowder). A setting set in a more modern era will have to change some rules.
Generally it isn't much more effort to write how the setting is different to another similar one, compared to writing what the setting is like in the first place. Often less if it has some things in common.

I have given up on D&D 5e. As-is,

Players Handbook → Forgotten Realms campaign setting assumptions → polytheism

For me the current PH, thus the 5e game, is unusuable.

Is it the crunch or the fluff that renders it unusable to you? Other than (perhaps) allowing clerics to be of any alignment, which actual rules enforce polytheism?