Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="PeterWeller" data-source="post: 4002786" data-attributes="member: 55795">Thanks for the very reasoned response Devyn.  I'm just getting tired of the sweeping generalizations being tossed about that only turn discussions into arguments and arguments into pissing matches.Now for my question.  A lot of you who are upset with the changes have argued that these changes disturb the essential characteristics of the Realms.  Personally, I can't see why this is the case.  To me, the Realms has always been the all you can eat fantasy buffet setting.  If you have a group of players who want to play an eclectic assortment of characters inspired by an equally eclectic assortment of sources, the Realms is the setting for you.  The Realms give you room to run high fantasy alongside gritty sword and sorcery alongside hard boiled investigations alongside comic farces and gripping dramas.  The setting, in the hands of a decent and mildly knowledgeable DM, can be everything to everyone.  None of the changes I've seen have caused me to believe this will no longer be the case.  So what then (and now it's finally time for my question) about the changes has disrupted the essential core of the Realms to you?  I understand that my idea about what makes the Realms THE REALMS may be totally different than yours, but so far, I've only seen arguments about the quality of the story events and some mention about how the perceived problems weren't problems at all, but nothing about how the changes upset the core assumptions and themes of the setting.  As for the quality of the fluff, it's hokey, but the Realms has always been pretty hokey, and it seems to be hokey in the same vein as previous Realms story events.  As for the perceived problems, I agree that a lot of them were problems of perception or player quality rather than inherent problems with the setting, but that's only because I believe one of the core tenets of good DMing is ignoring anything and everything that is detrimental to your group's enjoyment of the game.  Stuff like the preponderance of high level spell casters was something we either ignored outright or worked around in some way, so why does it matter so much if it has been toned or cut down to appeal to the people who did perceive a problem with it?  Does that really change the feeling of the setting, especially if it's part of the setting that you downplay at your table?That's a little rambling and excessive and I apologize, so for the TL;DR crowd:  I feel like the core of the Realms, geographically and thematically, hasn't changed in any really significant way.  It's still a setting that can incorporate a huge variety of characters and play styles in one campaign, and that, to me, is what the Realms truly is.  My question is: if you think the core character of the Realms has been changed, what do you consider that core character to be, and what changes upset that core character?Also, I'm not saying my idea of what makes the Forgotten Realms forgotten realms is the one true way; it's just why I like the Realms.</blockquote>

Verification