Campaign setting recommendations

One problem with a world not following geographical principles is that, as a player, you can't make decisions based on geographically sound assumptions. It's harder to make informed decisions in an environment that breaks all of the rules.

For example, you're looking for a dry ravine but don't know the local geography. You're in a forested region windward of a rise of mountains. It might be a good idea to check the other side of the rise, but if the world doesn't follow the rules, you can't make these kinds of choices.

As another example, in the 7th Sea world of Theah, there are rivers running from an ocean, across the continent, to another ocean. Err....which way do they flow and why do they flow that way? Where the heck does the water come from? Salt or freshwater? If I need to travel on the river, these kinds of things might actually become relevant. What really irritates me is that they never even explain how this miraculous wonder of nature works, or even mention that this is unusual at all.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

As I said, I think there are far more important things to think about. Who cares that there's steamy jungle full of cannibal halflings and orc neanderthals; an arctic region inhabited by thanoi and ice yachters; an egyptianesque desert necro-empire of sentient undead; flying island human nations with pegasi knights, floating cities, flying citadels and cloud castles; fire swamps; a nation of viking giants; and an ex-elven chaos realm of fey-ri, half-demon fey, demons, abyssal gates and wild magic all within tens of miles of each other so long as they improve the campaign?

After they're there, then try and work out the reasons why the climate is so crazy and why the giants and undead and demons don't just invade and destroy everything, rather than the other way around, which involves saying "that's unrealistic, I can't do that"...
 
Last edited:

If everything is the way it is for exceptional reasons, your actions become more and more based on random and arbitrary criteria. I'm fine with unrealistic ideas of course, that's the whole point of fantasy. The less realistic it gets, however, the more I like it to:

a) Be internally consistent.
b) Have a consistent and evocative theme that ties it all together (like Scarred Lands) rather than using magic as a crutch to shore up poor design choices.
 
Last edited:

erm, interesting thread

not certain how it went into an all FR vs Kalamar all the time thread, but ok.

Well, I certainly won't deny that FR has its weaknesses they do seem overly exaggerated by the opposition to the point of caricature.

It would seem to be counter-intuitive that FR still stands strong after all of this time simply under the weight of content when something like Dragonlance has had so much trouble and there has never been a stable Star Trek game.

If FR weren't viable from a gaming perspective it should have fallen apart by now, instead it continues to grow.

Even if there were nothing to FR than its rich network of support and cannon and the promise of continual dynamism than these are things that should also be looked at in terms of the advantages they offer.

And possibly contrasted against the imposibility of that sort of dynamism in Kalamar.

I mean, if you really want your players to be the centers of the action than you should go to Exalted or Oathbound. But if you want your players to be one series of actors among many, then Forgotten Realms is your very best choice.

Kalamar fits someplace in the middle of that. There's only so individual epic you can go before you break Kalamar, and you can't go much farther with a corporate story either.

Kalamar is neither the individual adventure of the Odyssey nor the ensemble experience of the Iliad. It's just never going to be Homer.

The Forgotten Realms, on the other hand, will never be anything other than Homer and Herodotus. The place is always quaking with immense events that have a real and true effect on the world. It's not the wild fantasy of Exalted, Planescape, or Oathbound, but it is a place where there are several Cyrus's a generation. Moving peoples and rewriting history. Which, of course, is one way history gets written.

That said I do think that Forgotten Realms is getting a bum wrap on the history treatment. It certainly isn't as clear cut, simple, and easily supported as Kalamar. But someone mentioned earlier that you only need to scratch the surface of history to see the superiority of Kalamar and that's absolutely accurate.

It's once you spend more time in history and anthropology that Kalamar seems more like a high school text book and less like something really interesting. Where Forgotten Realms seems more forgivable in its crimes.

This doesn't mean that FR is off the hook just that the gap is not so broad as this thread seems to say.

Take, for instance, the much touted Horde running up against the Egyptians. Admittedly, there's some anachronism there, as I said FR is not off the hook. But FR is pretty deliberate about its anachronism, and the Mongol Horde did reach one of its boundaries in its battles with the Egyptian Mamlukes. Also true of Persians and Turks, at least for a while.

While, with the exception of the Turks and Arabs, hordes are only blips on the larger ideas of history and anthropology of the Middle East, in any more detailed study they occur with fairly regular frequency. Riding in from the North and East, and on two notable occasions from the South, mucking up the more stable politics of the middle east, and having trouble affecting any sort of change on Egypt, again with two notable exceptions.

If the distribution of seas disturbs you, please account for your comfort with the whole dynamic of Atlantic, Medditerranean, Black, Caspian, Red, Indian, and Aral.

If that isn't what disturbs about the geography of FR than please do give some specifics. FR has a lot of individual apparent crimes, that can be defended or not, but that in and of itself points out the fact that the geography does not simply not make sense.

There are a lot of different cultures in FR, but they occupy reasonable areas, unlike the vast and somehow homogenized cultures of Kalamar, and they do live in a version of 'Europe' in which the culture fragmenting affects of the Balkans and Black Forest are universal and in which there is no equivalent of the Danube, Rhine, or Meditteranean super cultures.

In my mind their only really blatant crime, aside from the super cool crime of Anauroch, are the jungles of Chult. But they're really only misplaced in Europe, in a situation like India the transition from fairly dry to extreme jungle is about as short.

Still not an argument that totally forgives Faerun, but one at least that should dispel the idea that FR has nothing going for it. Particularly in comparison to Kalamar.
 
Last edited:

arcady said:
The rest of yours didn't seem to even scratch at logic - but rather at an attempt to blindly rationalize away all of the severe problems in the design of FR. Most of them failed to look at the larger picture.


Actually I think you pretty much got your arse kicked. I get tired of the overbroad, ignorant generalizations like your original post. And wtf is "meta-plot"? If you'd like me to go into detail as to why you're wrong. Please let me know, I'd be delighted.

FR breaks down at every angle. I've found nothing about FR that makes it a good setting. It's about as bad as they can possibly be built.

No, it doesn't.

It's only survived under the weight of novels, TSR branding, iconic NPCs, and the art. As well actually, the fact that many people just don't care about these things

*blink*

I can go on, but what's the point?

Probably the most sane question asked so far.

Personally Kalamar is my bag right now but I still buy the FRCS books because they are very well done. I guess I'm one of the many "who just don't care 'bout deez tings". :rolleyes:

The original poster has made up his mind anyway, let this thread die.
 

I DM two campaigns in FR, but I have heavily modified the setting. The fact that it blatantly uses historical cultures is imho a plus - it offers me a whole lot of additional material and inspiration when I alter and revise the region I center a campaign in.
The whole load of novels is a mixed blessing. They often offer adventure plots and ideas, NPCs/locations and nice details. On the other hand, many novels, even those that are an enjoyable read, are - imho - unsuitable to be game canon. Often - again imho - a story device is becomes canon without regard for game balance, internal consistency or even simple logic. The worst offenders are, imho, among the "plot-advancing novels". As long as it is understood that only the DM decides what is canon and what not it is no problem to run the FR, but if players insist on every product being canon, no matter how illogical and contrary to other products it turns out, then it becomes a nightmare.

IMHO, FR stands and falls with the DM. I run it as a kind of low-magic-item world, with much more emphasis on kalamaresque motivations (Power, greed, politics etc.) instead of the good-vs-evil aspect.
 

In response to the previous poster: The metaplot is, imho, a big flaw of the FR. The fact that novels drive the history of the realms onward, often "solving" plot hooks and shaping the world year after year, is very frustrating for a DM that wants the PCs to do those things. If the PCs finally succeed in destroying a orghanisation and the next trilogy or sourcebook has the same organisation taking over a country then the DM has to adapt the material, negating the advantage of a premade setting. This is compounded by the fact that the FRCS is mostly shaped by important and powerful NPCs - killing one can alter the whole setting. The fixed aspect of Kalamr is a great plus imho - I can drive the setting's history onward without worrying about canon plot.
 

Fenes 2 said:
In response to the previous poster: The metaplot is, imho, a big flaw of the FR. The fact that novels drive the history of the realms onward, often "solving" plot hooks and shaping the world year after year, is very frustrating for a DM that wants the PCs to do those things. If the PCs finally succeed in destroying a orghanisation and the next trilogy or sourcebook has the same organisation taking over a country then the DM has to adapt the material, negating the advantage of a premade setting. This is compounded by the fact that the FRCS is mostly shaped by important and powerful NPCs - killing one can alter the whole setting. The fixed aspect of Kalamr is a great plus imho - I can drive the setting's history onward without worrying about canon plot.

Ah, thanks man. ;)

I never read the books anyway. I think the last was The Cleric Quintet quite some time ago. Although I still don't think I would blame the books for anything, those writers are out to make a buck and they have to make the books interesting enough for people to buy them.

Hard to keep up with all these D&D buzz-words flying around. :)
 


Now that I do have a little problem with, but since I don't ever read the books, well except for the dark elf series a long time ago.

Have the developers made some mistake along the way? Yeah. But the setting has withstood the test of time and will continue to do so. Thats all I'm sayin'.

:D

Oh, one more thing. Thanks Fenes2, you've helped me prove my point that FR can be scaled to whatever you want it to be. Curious as to what you've done with it.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top