Campaign setting recommendations

[Orias]

I'm not trying to shove anyone's opinion down anyone's throat, nor am I being snarky in the least.

I disagree.

Orias has made some patently false claims, and I've pointed that out.

Here is proof of that. I state OPINION. You state OPINION. Your opinion tells me that my OPINIONS are wrong, & then when I back myself up, you tell me to keep it only to OPINIONS. Then in another post, you tell someone about how I am "wrong". Rather contridictiary.

He's also presented anyone who doesn't like the FR as some kind of ignorant troll who doesn't know what they're talking about, which I take a little bit of umbrage to.

Now that's just a lie? Where have I stated that? I don't mind if you do or do not like the Forgotten Realms. In fact, it's not even close to being my favorite setting. However, you are using reasons like "geographical inconsistancies" & "trade route errors" for a setting where people can teleport & where demons & angels openly battle over the ethics of the world, that is what I think is going a little too far. Then when I state what I think of the setting, you tell me how I am "wrong". For someone who seems to only have read the main 3e FRCS, you are sure spouting off yourself as a FR Sage who understands the entire setting.

I've consistently said if FR suits you, great. That doesn't, however, mean that it suits everyone and anyone's compaints about it are automatically ignorant or invalid.

Nobody is saying otherwise, certainly not me. If you like KoK, great - have fun roleplaying - us nerd need to stick together, but if you are going to tell me how my opinions are wrong, & how yours are right, & then defame me by trying to vilianize me into some typical Drizzt-loving Harper's rulz j00 fanboy then you are contradictiating just about everything that you have said. I never said FR was for everyone, I said - in my opinion, Forgotten Realms is the best thought out Prime Material campaign setting since Arda (Arda being too detailed to actually play on, in my opinion). I have read through several canon books, read the Guide to Whole Realms, read the Ecologies & several different regional settings, different Historical boxed sets, & I have concluded that IN MY OPINION, FR is a great setting, & it's good points greatly out-weigh it's bad points (although I do think 3e FR has gotten a little silly, but that's a different story).

 

[Orias]

Agree?

I agree. I just like to discuss role playing issues, but if there was going to be an argument over it, I wish there would be more examples than "FR is historically inaccurate within itself" or "geography is wrong!" without providing actual examples. I will agree with both, but that is true of all D&D settings.

 

[Desdichado]

Give me examples of this. If the history of it is so cluttered, as you say it is, what examples do you have in the Realms of blatant historical contradiction within itself?

I'm talking about the external history of the Realms here. The Realms, being a fantasy setting, as you are wont to point out, don't exist except in the concept of the multiple authors who created it. This is the cluttered history of the Realms that makes it literally impossible to be a "well-thought-out" setting, as you claim. It's growth was unplanned and cobbled in nature. I mean, really -- are you denying this? It may not be a problem or it may be, but certainly at the very least it makes your opening statement patently false.

Then explain dragons & magic. It's fantasy, if I wanted to play real life, that's what I would do.

There are plenty of explanations for dragons and fantasy both. Ever read a fantasy novel? Most of them go to great lengths to explain magic in an internally consistent and logical framework. There's a difference between logic, verisimilitude and realism. You're lumping them all together and saying that since fantasy, by it's very defition isn't realistic, it shouldn't have either of the other traits either. That's fine if you think so. However, clearly not everyone agrees with that.

Not know what I am talking about? I stated that Mulhorand is Egypt. In fact, they basically came out & said "The Mulhorandi people were gated over from actual Egypt". What I am saying is that you are saying that this manner of stating a culture's existance is "sloppy", yet every setting uses that for one set of beings or another.

Yet you've ingnored Maztica, the Horde, Kara-Tur, the "Arabian" Calimes, and any other example. Bravo. You've found an explanation for one of the worst offenders of the "cultural melange" that is FR, and think that it validates the rest of them? And that explanation is pretty cheesy, anyway. That's an opinion, for those who are unsure.

And I wasn't arguing one being "more diverse" than the other. The fact is that someone stated "Well, you have cultures that are ripped from real life on Toril, but you can't possibly say that about Kalamar", when in fact you most certainly can.

You're not arguing that? Is this not a quote from your post?

THen you have Kenjib arguing that Kalamr's cultures are soooo much more diverse than Forgotten Realms.

You missed the point of that complaint entirely, so your "arguments" don't even address the question. They're completely irrelevant.

It's not a problem. If your players whine, point to that sentance in the book.

As I said, you can say it's not a problem all you want, that doesn't make it so. Clearly, a lot of groups do have a problem with that. Personally, I don't. Then again, nobody in my group is particularly interested in FR, so we're not likely to ever play it. It's not a problem for me, it's not a problem for you -- does that mean it's not a problem? Absolutely not; it's a big problem for a lot of groups.

As I said before, you are not able to actually determine just exactly why a trade route exists in a game unless you have developed why those trade routes exist, & why or how that culture collects its resources. Once you know that, you can start getting bitter towards things like trade routes, & inconsistant coast-lines. But until then, it doesn't matter. Play a game & have fun with it. You're arguing a point that is entirely moot because it is a fantasy setting. It isn't inconsistant, because the very idea of such a world existing is inconsistant.

That's not an argument, that's a dodge. I'm telling you again, just because it's fantasy doesn't mean that we can throw all our ideas of anything out the window. How'd you like the game if I arbitrarily started adjusting the laws of gravity as they applied to your characters, and when you complained, I said "It's fantasy, realism doesn't belong here. What are you complaining about?"

Same to you. I am arguing my position on a fantasy setting. I stated my opinion, & then you stated why I was so incredibly "wrong", & now you are backing into a "don't state your opinion as facts" - again, same to you.

Same to me? I've never presented any of my opininons as facts. I've merely stated that your statement that FR is well-thought out is completely untrue, and that the other quoted problems with the Realms may not be problems for all gamers, but that doesn't invalidate them as problems. I've also repeatedly pointed out that more than just the Mulhorandi are no more than calques of earth cultures thrown in to FR essentially without modification. That's not an opinion either. How, exactly, is that presenting my opinion as fact?

 

[Desdichado]

People like what they like and thats the end of it, you could argue about who's right and who's wrong for a decade and it will get you nowhere.

Of course. If you look back at my posts, I haven't made one in the last two pages at least where I didn't say something along the lines of "if it works for you great, but these are issues for me." I understand the "history" of these types of discussions making it difficult to hold them sometimes, though. There's been a lot of collective ugliness on FR vs Greyhawk vs Whatever else over the years.

 

[Innocent Bystander]

Guys, guys, can we all just settle down a little here. I had no idea my little topic could spark such a heated debate. Everyone reads things and sees things a little different. That's why there's different religeons that don't get along when they're all reading from the same book. They all just interpret things a little differently. But no harm, no foul, k guys?

I hope no one objects if I continue along the lines that the thread was intended for.

So I'm looking at the Setting, Screen, Players (so my players can choose one of the local races if they want to), and probably the suppliment for Hobgoblins. I don't want a book that really details a specific area as I want to fill in the details as I see fit, so I won't pick one up that does that.

Thanks for the help guys.

 

[Desdichado]

Here is proof of that. I state OPINION. You state OPINION. Your opinion tells me that my OPINIONS are wrong, & then when I back myself up, you tell me to keep it only to OPINIONS. Then in another post, you tell someone about how I am "wrong". Rather contridictiary.

Perhaps. Your "opinion" on the development of FR isn't really an opinion issue, though -- you can look at the history of the development of the setting at TSR. Your opinion on the nature of the problems other groups are having is also meaningless, since you have no experience with the problems other groups are having. I've been in groups and talked to gamers that had serious problems with FR fanboys in their group making the setting virtually unplayable, and you dismiss these problems as irrelevant. They may be to you, but that hardly makes them negligble to the gamers that are having those problems. To use one example.

Now that's just a lie? Where have I stated that? I don't mind if you do or do not like the Forgotten Realms. In fact, it's not even close to being my favorite setting. However, you are using reasons like "geographical inconsistancies" & "trade route errors" for a setting where people can teleport & where demons & angels openly battle over the ethics of the world, that is what I think is going a little too far. Then when I state what I think of the setting, you tell me how I am "wrong". For someone who seems to only have read the main 3e FRCS, you are sure spouting off yourself as a FR Sage who understands the entire setting.

It's absolutely not a lie. You stated twice in your opening thread there that you don't think the complainers have even read the book. You've also ignored the almost half dozen examples I've given you of my particular problem; cultures that are nothing more than earth-cultures thrown into FR.

Nobody is saying otherwise, certainly not me. If you like KoK, great - have fun roleplaying - us nerd need to stick together, but if you are going to tell me how my opinions are wrong, & how yours are right, & then defame me by trying to vilianize me into some typical Drizzt-loving Harper's rulz j00 fanboy then you are contradictiating just about everything that you have said. I never said FR was for everyone, I said - in my opinion, Forgotten Realms is the best thought out Prime Material campaign setting since Arda (Arda being too detailed to actually play on, in my opinion). I have read through several canon books, read the Guide to Whole Realms, read the Ecologies & several different regional settings, different Historical boxed sets, & I have concluded that IN MY OPINION, FR is a great setting, & it's good points greatly out-weigh it's bad points (although I do think 3e FR has gotten a little silly, but that's a different story).

I'm not trying to demonize you at all; I'm trying to point out that "your opinion" covers items that aren't really a matter of opinion in many cases, and you're simply dismissing genuine problems that many, many groups have had as invalid. I think your opinion is just fine, for you, obvioiusly, but you have no respect for the opinion of anyone else who disagrees with you; you handwave their opinions aside as unimportant or invalid.

 

[Orias]

I'm talking about the external history of the Realms here. The Realms, being a fantasy setting, as you are wont to point out, don't exist except in the concept of the multiple authors who created it. This is the cluttered history of the Realms that makes it literally impossible to be a "well-thought-out" setting, as you claim. It's growth was unplanned and cobbled in nature. I mean, really -- are you denying this? It may not be a problem or it may be, but certainly at the very least it makes your opening statement patently false.

Indeed, the realms were made throughout the years by numerous authors, but it was designed off of a skeleton put together by a very few amount of people, & a lot of the "developments" were made off of previous examples, statements, & work done by these people. Ed Greenwood has usually always had a say in any official product that relates to the culture or the history of the Realms. It's the people who believe that all of the books are "canon" is what contradicts this, but in all instances, it really isn't too much of a problem.

There are plenty of explanations for dragons and fantasy both. Ever read a fantasy novel? Most of them go to great lengths to explain magic in an internally consistent and logical framework.

Just as the Realms does with The Weave. However, describing magic as internally consistent doesn't mean that all of a sudden geography has to fit with logic outside of the fantasy setting, because in all actuallity, no matter how much you describe magic as, it is still not-logical. If it was, it wouldn't be magic.

There's a difference between logic, verisimilitude and realism. You're lumping them all together and saying that since fantasy, by it's very defition isn't realistic, it shouldn't have either of the other traits either. That's fine if you think so. However, clearly not everyone agrees with that.

Yet you've ingnored Maztica, the Horde, Kara-Tur, the "Arabian" Calimes, and any other example. Bravo. You've found an explanation for one of the worst offenders of the "cultural melange" that is FR, and think that it validates the rest of them? And that explanation is pretty cheesy, anyway. That's an opinion, for those who are unsure.

How am I ignoring them? Have you read my posts where I stated that many of the FR cultures did come from Earth, or other planets similar to real-life, & that is why many of them exist in the way they do? I'm not ignoring them, what I think you are ignoring is the fact that KoK does the exact same thing, yet you are slandering FR for it, but defending KoK for it. You state a claim where you want realism, & then when you get it - you complain about it.

You're not arguing that? Is this not a quote from your post?

No, I am not arguing that. I wasn't using "FR is more diverse" neccessarily as weapon, except for the fact that the anit-FR argument was over four cultures being too close to real-life (while all of KoK are extremely similar to real-life settings), but the dozens of other cultures are being ignored.

You missed the point of that complaint entirely, so your "arguments" don't even address the question. They're completely irrelevant.

See my statement above.

Absolutely not; it's a big problem for a lot of groups.

If it's a problem where DMs can't put their foot down, & where players can't read - fine.

Same to me? I've never presented any of my opininons as facts. I've merely stated that your statement that FR is well-thought out is completely untrue

And this is not an opinion?

I've also repeatedly pointed out that more than just the Mulhorandi are no more than calques of earth cultures thrown in to FR essentially without modification. That's not an opinion either.

Actually, it is an opinion. It wouldn't be if you didn't throw in "essentially without modification", because if you actually read the history of these cultures, you would see that through the years, there have been TONS of modifications. I understand that it is more than just Mulhorand, that's just the culture I am typing, because I would rather not type each one you have the EXACT SAME PROBLEM WITH. Sorry that you have to nitpick.

How, exactly, is that presenting my opinion as fact?

By telling me that I am wrong, by lieing about my stance on the issue, are you actually reading what you are typing?

 

[kenjib]

So I'm looking at the Setting, Screen, Players (so my players can choose one of the local races if they want to), and probably the suppliment for Hobgoblins. I don't want a book that really details a specific area as I want to fill in the details as I see fit, so I won't pick one up that does that.

Thanks for the help guys.

Another option is the Dangerous Denizens monster book, if you like monster books. The creatures include geographical ranges superimposed on a map of the world, which could be useful. You should also at least take a look at the Atlas on the shelf if you don't already know much about it. It's a one-of-a-kind book.

The essentials are the setting book and to a lesser extent the player's guide. To be honest, I think you could run a fine campaign with just the setting book.

 

[Desdichado]

Taking this private -- Orias, I've got an e-mail coming your way.

 

[Orias]

Perhaps. Your "opinion" on the development of FR isn't really an opinion issue, though -- you can look at the history of the development of the setting at TSR. Your opinion on the nature of the problems other groups are having is also meaningless, since you have no experience with the problems other groups are having. I've been in groups and talked to gamers that had serious problems with FR fanboys in their group making the setting virtually unplayable, and you dismiss these problems as irrelevant. They may be to you, but that hardly makes them negligble to the gamers that are having those problems. To use one example.

And how is it not? The Realms have always been structured around one central idea, & the big three always had a say in what went on historically & culturally. The history of the Realms has been extremely consistant for being a project that has been around for over 10 years.

It's absolutely not a lie. You stated twice in your opening thread there that you don't think the complainers have even read the book. You've also ignored the almost half dozen examples I've given you of my particular problem; cultures that are nothing more than earth-cultures thrown into FR.

Actually, it is a lie. Why I have stated that I believe the complainers haven't read the book is because both of you are saying "Well, Mulharond looks juuuust like Egypt" - when they state directly in the book that it is supposed to be that way. As I have said, they basically came out & said Mulhorand came from Earth's Egypt. That's why I think neither of you have really read the book. I did not come out & say "You are an idiot" or anything of the matter. If you can't see the difference between someone asking "Have you read the book?" & "Anyone who doesn't play this setting is an idiot" then you have a lot of issues at hand.

I'm not trying to demonize you at all; I'm trying to point out that "your opinion" covers items that aren't really a matter of opinion in many cases, and you're simply dismissing genuine problems that many, many groups have had as invalid. I think your opinion is just fine, for you, obvioiusly, but you have no respect for the opinion of anyone else who disagrees with you; you handwave their opinions aside as unimportant or invalid.

Wait? It's me who is the one with the problem of someone else's opinion - stated in a sentence where you are telling me that my opinion is not really a matter of opinion but fact? Yes, I can clearly see that. Oh I am soooo sorry for ever having defamed you. I am so sorry for stating my opinion that the Realms, for the most part, are well thought out, which is not only a factually incorrect statement, but a blatant lie. I am sorry to have questioned you, wise sage of the history of the Forgotten Realms, & all things wrong with it. I am sorry that I did not take into account that some DMs have the problem with putting their foot down on not using NON-CANON material in game, & realizing that this is a fact to why the Realms as a roleplaying setting is bad.