D&D 5E 5th edition Forgotten Realms: Why can't you just ignore the lore?

[Imaro]

I don't think you understand the scope of the problem.

The Realms canon includes everything published by WotC (and TSR), which includes campaign guides. But it also includes novels (and there are scores of those) from many authors. It also includes modules produced over the past 20+ years.

A good portion of those older materials (1E and 2E) are out of print. The newer (3.0 and 3.5E) sourcebooks, of which there are dozens and all hardbacks, often pull snippets from the older materials but also include regional and historical updates. Now that we're into 5E, which doesn't have a campaign guide yet, you're lucky to find even 3.5E books - and WotC doesn't plan to make a campaign guide or even think about one until at least 2016 or later.

More than that, Realms canon includes anything Ed Greenwood has written about the Realms. This includes thousands of answers to fans, over decades, at the Candlekeep website - and these are dispersed through hundreds and hundreds of webpages at that site.

There are also scores of mini-articles, brief glances at various people and places in the Realms, many of which used to be hosted at WotC - and some still are, if the web links are still alive.

When someone says, "there's too much to catch up on" for new DMs, or even DMs that have been away from it for an edition or two, they really aren't kidding. It's impossible to know what your players have read and therefore expect you to know because all of those materials have never been collated into a single source or browsable location.

There's the FR wiki, but it contains a fraction of what's been deemed canon. And it's not always correct or thorough enough.

Beyond all of that, FR contains a HUGE amount of silly cheese, hundreds of overpowered epic characters, crazy gods wandering around like NPCs, and a host of other things you might want to edit out beforehand.

For example, most recently, the Realms overgod got mad at the main pantheon gods, decided to teach them a lesson because they were naughty, and in short order this led to the death of several well-liked gods, the magical nuking of the world, several outer planes being mashed together, another "twin" world crashing into the Realms and swapping out or obliterating entire nations. They also jumped the timeline ahead 100 years and didn't fill in any details of that period at all. This is now all being "undone" (at least in part), with the worlds moving apart and some gods/nations returning, but no one knows the extent or scope of those changes because there's no new campaign guide, only novels. And those novels don't provide but a few details.

I understand the scope of the "problem"... I just don't agree that for some reason the DM limiting the source(s) isn't the solution.

 

[Laeknir]

I understand the scope of the "problem"... I just don't agree that for some reason the DM limiting the source(s) isn't the solution.

The moment you start cutting out huge swaths of lore from the Realms, technically you're no longer running a Realms game.

Many people do run homebrew games and import bits and pieces of the Realms.

But those are homebrew, not canon Realms games. And people who beg and cajole to play in the Realms usually want to play in the canon Realms - otherwise they're disappointed and don't have fun. So if you have those players, who want the full experience, you have to collect out-of-print materials, read up on novels, and spend weeks (if not months or years) sifting through everything available at WotC and Candlekeep, assuming the weblinks are still even active.

 

[Hussar]

I understand the scope of the "problem"... I just don't agree that for some reason the DM limiting the source(s) isn't the solution.

Let me ask you this then, if it's perfectly acceptable for DM's to limit canon sources, why is it automatically bad for WOTC to scale back canon sources?

No one is saying that FR should have no canon. That's missing the point of a published setting. But, when WOTC tried to scale back on the level of canon, with the 4e Spellplague stuff, people went straight around the bend. Not because the new canon was somehow poorly written or whatnot, but, simply because it was axing large swaths of previous canon.

At what point can the holders of canon step back and hit a restart button?

 

[Imaro]

The moment you start cutting out huge swaths of lore from the Realms, technically you're no longer running a Realms game.

So what is the cut off line? IF I say I am running a Forgotten Realms game with only the 3rd edition Campaign Setting book as canon... is that then not a FR game?

Many people do run homebrew games and import bits and pieces of the Realms.

This isn't what I described... I said limiting your sources of canon... not running a whole cloth different world and sprinkling it with a few Realmsisms. Again what is the cut off line?

But those are homebrew, not canon Realms games. And people who beg and cajole to play in the Realms usually want to play in the canon Realms - otherwise they're disappointed and don't have fun. So if you have those players, who want the full experience, you have to collect out-of-print materials, read up on novels, and spend weeks (if not months or years) sifting through everything available at WotC and Candlekeep, assuming the weblinks are still even active.

I agree what you described is a homebrew but it's not what i was speaking to. The thing is to be upfront with those people who beg and cajole for a Realms game about what exactly, from a DM/canon perspective, will be included... As to your other point, no you don't "have to" collect out of print materials, read up on novels, etc. unless you as a DM find that fun, and want to do it... otherwise tell them what your limitations are and work within your group to compromise... Or don't run a Realms game (since as you cited above without some undisclosed minimum threshold it's not a Realms game it's a homebrew).

 

[Imaro]

Let me ask you this then, if it's perfectly acceptable for DM's to limit canon sources, why is it automatically bad for WOTC to scale back canon sources?

I never claimed it was automatically bad in an objective sense... now whether it's a bad business decision for them is another matter (I'd love to see sales figures for the 4e spellplague FR book vs. the 3e campaign book). however I don't think "I can't limit/handle/scale back FR so no one should get more canon" is a particularly convincing or mature argument IMO... especially since they aren't forcing you to buy or use all of it.

No one is saying that FR should have no canon. That's missing the point of a published setting. But, when WOTC tried to scale back on the level of canon, with the 4e Spellplague stuff, people went straight around the bend. Not because the new canon was somehow poorly written or whatnot, but, simply because it was axing large swaths of previous canon.

Because those people enjoyed that canon, plain and simple (which is what I said like 3 or 4 posts ago). You're forcing you're preference on them when your preference (limited canon) could easily be met by implementing it yourself... while their preference doesn't exist anymore (and remember this was when the backlog of PDF's had got pulled).

On a personal note I'll admit I didn't particularly care for the one (ok two if you count the PB which 90% of was already in the DM book) book and done model (at least not in 4e where it seemed like it contained less information and less crunch than previous hardbacks) when it came to Eberron... I had lost most of my 3e books due to moving for the setting and thought hey instead of buying the old stuff I'll just get the 4e books... I definitely regretted that choice.

At what point can the holders of canon step back and hit a restart button?

The problem is this wasn't done. You want to restart a setting then tell your fanbase that and actually restart the setting from the beginning... what we got with 4e FR was added canon that invalidated...

They produced more canon (which many arguably didn't care for) in order to eliminate canon they arguably did care for. The only reason it was less canon (some would say incomplete as opposed to less)was because of the 4e book model not because they actually said hey guys were going to take FR back to the grey box (I think that was the beginning but correct me if I'm wrong) and give everyone a ground zero evergreen FR's sourcebook where anything after that is just possible canon... that for me is restarting as opposed to adding and invalidating.

 

[Laeknir]

So what is the cut off line? IF I say I am running a Forgotten Realms game with only the 3rd edition Campaign Setting book as canon... is that then not a FR game?

For those people who care about playing in the canon "living" Realms, no - it would be insufficient. Take a look at some people like Sailor Moon who prefer canon games. In this thread she's point-blank told people to "go educate yourself" and that others "obviously aren't familiar with the Realms." It important to some.

This isn't what I described... I said limiting your sources of canon... not running a whole cloth different world and sprinkling it with a few Realmsisms. Again what is the cut off line?

I agree what you described is a homebrew but it's not what i was speaking to. The thing is to be upfront with those people who beg and cajole for a Realms game about what exactly, from a DM/canon perspective, will be included... As to your other point, no you don't "have to" collect out of print materials, read up on novels, etc. unless you as a DM find that fun, and want to do it... otherwise tell them what your limitations are and work within your group to compromise... Or don't run a Realms game (since as you cited above without some undisclosed minimum threshold it's not a Realms game it's a homebrew).

Hey I agree with you, because I don't really like the Realms for a lot of reasons (mostly the metastory cheese). I haven't played in it since the late 1st edition or so, because it's no longer my thing and a lot of people get super-crazy about following lore exactly.

You can be upfront with players who want the living canon Realms, and tell them you're limiting this and that, but even really mature players who are Realmsfans will still be disappointed if you don't get it right. And getting it right means a ton of research, not just flipping open a years-old campaign guide and rolling with that. The "cut off line" for what acceptable to Reamsfan A might be completely insufficient for Realmsfans B and C. You never can be sure, even if you ask them beforehand. Mess up on how Laeral or Khelben are portrayed, and that might've been one of the things they really wanted to do but forgot to mention.

Even worse, you now have the split in Realmsfans where 4E is not acceptable at all, for whatever reasons they have. So you're expected to carefully, surgically remove all the 4E stuff while still running in the current year.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

and again we are back to my suggestion for Ultimate Forgotten Realms, a rewrite starting with the 1e box set, but with the history truncated but mostly intact. Just take the best info, rewrite it so it is more a modern campaign setting with warriors and wizards and warlocks.... just using the latest (in this case 5e) ruleset and no major shifts in rules. Take the most fun parts and leave the 500+ novels mostly out. Reset the NPCs to Iconic idea, but much lower level more in line with use in play. Make it able to be relayed in 1 book of campaign setting.

then have little side bars "Hey if you want X to happen look at this old novel series/ rules for inspiration"

Make the chosen a full PCable templet, give it to more gods.

In this idea Elminster instead of being a 32nd level fighter/theif/priestess/archmage, is a 5th level bard with silver fire (a cool damage but mostly used to rebuild dead magic zones) a few non combat spell like abilities, and is ageless (not immortal can totally be killed) with a super high Int (notice not his casting stat) and access to his goddess for additional info... that way he is the world's greatest sage but still needs PCs.... in this alt version (one made to be the game not the novels) he isn't able to fight off things that even 3rd level parties can...because 1 lone 5th level Bard is less then 5 3rd level PCs, maybe even 5 1st level PCs.

In this, maybe Blackstaff is a 5th level warlock who has a ton of political clout as a masked lord of waterdeep and a spy master who helps runs the harpers...

 

[Sailor Moon]

It's all very well and good to say, "Well, the DM has final say" but, at the end of the day, it means that the more canon you layer into a setting, the harder it is to run that setting.

Please explain what exactly is keeping you from ignoring canon and lore besides what your players want.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

That's all true. But let me suggest that part of the reason players want to play in the Realms is that they want to interact with all these larger-than-life personalities that they've read about. Maybe that's the attraction for those players.

It's like if I want to play Planescape, and there is no philosophy, factions, and/or planar politics, I'm going to be unhappy. Or Al-Qadim without the Arabian Nights and djinn. Or Dragonlance without dragons, dragonarmies or the Towers of High Sorcery.

Kind of a false analogy. I can like Star Wars and want to play with jedi and the Empire, but not want Han Solo to fly by in the Millennium Falcon, roll down the window and go "'Sup nerds, we just blew up the second Death Star, but hey, there's a half dead stormtrooper over there you could probably beat up if you all worked together". Its why many Star Wars games take place in an alt timeline, to let the PC's have the spotlight, and not just maybe aspire to be Jek Porkin's wingman.

Its really the glut of uber good aligned NPC's that cause problems for DM's, particularly given how there seems way more of them (and they're way more powerful) than the bad guys.

 

[Staffan]

At what point can the holders of canon step back and hit a restart button?

At any point they want, but doing so is usually a bad idea - particularly in a non-photographic medium where you aren't limited by actors.

I mean, let's say you have a very well-developed setting like the Forgotten Realms. There's a lot of stuff written about it, and some people think it's awesome and others think it sucks. Then you make some sort of major change to it, like the Spellplague and the rest of the 4e stuff.

The people who used to be fans of the setting are likely to be largely negative to changes like this. After all, they liked the old Realms. The people who didn't like the setting aren't likely to care at all - to them, it's still the Realms after all, and they probably have some other setting they like better.

That's why major reboots are often a bad idea - the potential downside is WAY bigger than the potential upside.