D&D 5E Campaign Settings 5e- Why I want to Forget the Realms

[Hussar]

Thank you for trying to assign motivations to those of us who dislike the FR; and by "thank you" I mean "Your position on my feelings is not only wrong, but nearly insulting."

My dislike of the FR has nothing to do with its popularity. Back when Greyhawk was all the rage, I loved it- and it wasn't despite its popularity; its popularity was irrelevant to my feelings. My dislike of the FR- and I speak only for myself, since I know that there are many reasons to dislike anything- is born from a host of factors, several of which I mentioned upthread. The Mary Sues, the "we'll shoehorn anything in here!" aesthetic, the fact that it is and probably always will be the same cast of NPCs, no matter how often they die, go to Hell or advance time a century or two, the fact that there is (IMHO) almost nothing original in the whole setting, the fact that the tone is so... syrupy, the fact that there are periodic FR-shaking events used every time there's an edition change, the fact that... well, I could go on, but I'm not trying to persuade anyone of anything other than to stop casting aspersions at the motivations of others for liking or disliking what they do.

But, that's not really true.

There's been TWO realm shaking events. Time of Troubles and the Spellplague. There was no major Realms change from 2e to 3e nor 3e to 3.5. And the changes in 5e have largely been smoothing over the changes that were made in 4e.

Greyhawk had the Greyhawk wars. So, you've got me there. Grey hawk has had one less RSE than the Realms. Given that Greyhawk has barely had anything written for it in twenty years, that's perhaps not terribly shocking. And what is not shoehorned into Greyhawk? What appears in FR that doesn't appear, in some fashion, in Greyhawk? They're both kitchen sink settings. They both are chock a block with Mary Sue NPC's. Good grief, Greyhawk has a bloody GOD as a king.

Funny how the setting has "nothing original" but also has too much material.

You're more than entitled to not like the Realms. I get that. I really do. But you are not entitled to your own facts.

 

[Hussar]

so instead you think it is ok to passive aggresvly say "Not you one person but SOME of there other people?" if you don't know why someone doesn't like something don't pretend you do... again "It's popular" has never been the reason given by anyone I have ever known...

Well, of course it's not. That would be admitting that it's irrational. No one is ever going to do that. But, from where I'm standing, it sure looks like that's what you're saying.

Me, I don't really do published settings. I didn't buy heavily into any published setting until 3e, although I certainly have a passing familiarity with a lot of settings. The criticisms you level at FR I level at all settings. They're no different. Every setting has the same crap that FR has. It's just that FR has so much more material, you have that much more crap. Sturgeon's Law certainly applies.

But, that's not what people are saying. They're saying they like published settings, but, don't like FR for X, Y and Z reasons. When it's pointed out that X, Y, and Z also appear in the settings they like, that point is entirely ignored. It's okay for Mary Sue NPC's to appear in a setting, just not Forgotten Realms. It's okay to have setting shaking events (Greyhawk Wars, Faction Wars). So on and so forth.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Eh?

I'm pretty sure I was as straightforward as I could be when I wrote this:

If someone decides to jump on the Let's Bash the Forgotten Realms! bandwagon, they rarely ever feel compelled to explain why they did so.

It's about the thrill of the ride in a theme park where nobody knows your real name, not about opening up and having an honest conversation with people who share a similar interest in D&D, but differ in their taste for published campaign settings.

In fact, I have only seen one person cop to it. On the WotC forums, about eight years ago.

Yea, well go back and read my threads... there are many I give every reason I dislike the realms, not one of them is popularity... I like popular things, I only got into ASoIaF (reading book 4 now) because of GoT and I love the show. I am not trolling I do not like the setting you do. I have real legitimate reasons... They incluse theroitcal, go into entire concepts, then end with very precise real world live examples where I have played in it multi time and 3 times ran it.. I have reasons, they are things I do not like....

 

[GMforPowergamers]

So, you're complaining about someone you don't know about? That doesn't strike you as strange? "I don't know anything about Farideh but she's just terrible!"

By your own admission, you haven't even done any research to see if the popular characters are the worst. That, and the random insults, pretty much makes any claims you make seem hollow. A hyper focus on one or two characters is rather suspect.

I don't have to research specific characters to know that running a game in a world full of character that out shine the PCs is a bad thing (on multi levels). I have players (well 1 right now until the new baby is a bit older on player 2) who read all the realms things... yes all of it and keeps up with word of greenwood on candle keep. I don't want to run in any setting with 300+ book learning curve. the whole thing is crazy over powered. MY complaint isn't "Hey you know that one character, he/she is a problem..." my complaint is that as bad as elminster is(and I could write a thesis on why he is) you could work around him, but you have seven sisters and blackstaff and that king guy who's name I don't even remember, and the guy under under mountain and the god who pretends he not and the drwo merc guy and a bunch of people I don't know... all of them are things I can't work around when my players talk about them because I don't know them.

what part of there is too much for a person running a campaing to learn don't you get?

the setting runs fine if you have players with less knowledge then you or are willing to overlook things... but running with just a book or two AND having real huge realms fans is annoying.

I run 90% my own settings and 10% campaign settings, but of that 10% the realms will no longer be... stop pretending this is some fake troll thing I DO NOT LIKE THE REALMS!!!

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Well, of course it's not. That would be admitting that it's irrational. No one is ever going to do that. But, from where I'm standing, it sure looks like that's what you're saying.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am about to pull my hair out...

OK, please tell me why you think it's popularity matters at all to me? The exact same setting that was made by DM A with no writing experience would be a bad setting in my mind. The exact same setting that was made and sold poorly would still be a bad setting in my mind.

Now the closest thing to an argument I can see anyone making for it's popularity being a factor goes like this:

If it had not been popular, there would be less books. If there were less books you would not have some of the issues you have. If it were less popular there fore you would not dislike it as much...

except at that point it really comes down to "If the problems you have with it were lesser or not there at all you would like it better." withc is pretty meaning less...

Me, I don't really do published settings.

like I said above I'm like 90% 10% and that 10% is mostly Dark sun, and Harry Dresden/D20 modern...

I didn't buy heavily into any published setting until 3e, although I certainly have a passing familiarity with a lot of settings.

I bought a lot of 2e campaign stuff myself (one day birthright I will run you...someday... maybe after I find someone to play spell jammer with out laughing)

The criticisms you level at FR I level at all settings.

some of them I level at all settings to varrias degrees.... however some of them are very spesfic to the realms... I would like to point out to not be bogged down in realms lore in a stupid pissing match (Well too late now) I tried to describe the problems as problems with other settings first...

They're no different. Every setting has the same crap that FR has. It's just that FR has so much more material, you have that much more crap. Sturgeon's Law certainly applies.

I do belive there are a few flaws backed in back at ground zero, BUT I agree 90% with this assessment... the problem is that all that crap exsists....

But, that's not what people are saying. They're saying they like published settings, but, don't like FR for X, Y and Z reasons. When it's pointed out that X, Y, and Z also appear in the settings they like, that point is entirely ignored. It's okay for Mary Sue NPC's to appear in a setting, just not Forgotten Realms. It's okay to have setting shaking events (Greyhawk Wars, Faction Wars). So on and so forth.

the problem is that I can gloss over or ignore a little of a problem (What % of bug guts are allowed in food) but as that number grows it causes problems...

now I want to pull out one thing here...

It's okay for Mary Sue NPC's to appear in a setting, just not Forgotten Realms.

no... 100% not. There is never a Mary Sue NPC that should appear in any setting... there is a difference between "Hey this is a power house NPC" (not great on it's own), and "Hey this good aligned adventureing power house NPC is a bit BS" (Major issue and can be a game breaker for me but maybe not) and "Hey there are a bunch of good aligned adventureing power house NPCs, and some Neutral ones too, and they come with a ton of back story and novels" (Witch no other setting in D&D has except dragon lance, and trust me is already passed my breaking point) and "This is just a auther insert power fantasy aka a mary sue" (Game over this is my too far thing...) and in and of itself, I could just remove elminster...

in fact, this is why I get annoyed and laugh at this whole argument, as much as I dislike elm, and his whole history, he was not my problem in any campaign. As much as I am not a fan of Drizet (well I like some stories and think salvator a good writer but don't want him in a game) he isn't anything I'm that big an issue on. MY problem is hidden land minds... Symbol broke my game because I could not plan around someone I didn't know... the king of some place did in a game I played... black staff and, well that isn't really fear that time was bad DMing...

even the midnight mystra thing buged me... and that was literally the first thing I learned at 17 about the setting... to paraphrase many years ago a friend told me "Yea, the neutral goddess of magic who held everything in balance died, and this slut adventurer took over and was banging the high wizard dude who is like dr strange meets gandolf but done right and was the ex lover of the dude who killed and took the place of the death god and she is stuck giving spells to bad guys or loosing her own power..."
now more then 20 years later I know some to all of that is wrong,I even know the idiot who told me this has matured very little from when we were freshmen in college. But the very first argument I made was "Why not just make the new god of magic neutral too?"

I dislike the setting, I didn't really know it except for stories until 3e (yes even playing it in 2e I didn't really know it) and I feel it has deep rooted flaws that should be addressed. No having said that, is it all bad... NO, there are good redemming things to it, but I can't get past what I see are glareing flaws...

I even have my own setting using a part of the realms map... It has an epic wizard call Nethril who is too old to adventure and has a lot of knowledge and maybe the power for one last battle in him, but maybe not. I have the Daggerdale family being lords like Robert in GoT but a hidden psionc power int here blood... and a sun "Prince Ken" who is arragont but also has a bit of a soft heart... I took a lot of realms stuff and left the bad stuff and it works fine... but it is 100% tailored to my players... I got into D&D through a starter set that had a realms lite in it, and this is all based on that stuff.

 

[Queer Venger]

I love the forgotten realms, it has so many great areas to adventure in, plenty of colourful NPCs. I think it is a great setting. I've never felt that by not having the Uber NPCs show up to solve something that it somehow ruins immersion or verisimilitude, after all, the PCs are the heroes of the story so naturally they are going to be the ones who overcome whichever great evil is threatening the area at the time.

I even thought that 4th edition brought some great ideas and areas, although I prefer 2e to 3e era realms. Some of the great changes with 4e was the reigniting of the wars between Calim and Memnon(?) with Genasi choosing sides and regular humanity being regulated to slaves of genie-kind. I also loved the idea of the Genasi city state with the floating islands, I forget the name since it's been a while since I've looked at it.

I'm sure that a lot of the hate is just personal preference. For instance, I consider Greyhawk to be a rather bland and boring setting but it has plenty of people who love the setting, which is great. No setting is made for everyone but there have been enough settings released that everyone will find one that they like. Of course, there is also homebrew, and who doesn't like coming up with their own spin on things?

Ive played and DM'ed in Greyhawk back in my 1e days. It was always an unsatisfying setting, and the names for places always silly; I could not say them with a straight face, (Bissel, Wolly bay, Gaernat, Furyondy, Keoland, Ulek?!? really, a vacuum cleaner is a country?). Greyhawk was Gygax's little playground, and it always felt like I was playing in his 'experimental' world. The world of 'Flanges' was tiny, cramped, and claustrophobic, (seriously, it is if you measure it in miles).

I feel that the Realms is a fully realized and developed world, with names that inspired fantasy, not sillyness, a big sandbox that I can make mine. Like you I agree that Greyhawk just seems flat, bland, but moreso silly. What really killed it for me were those horrid Gord novels, (no offense, Gygax was no novelist). After reading that series it became evident to me that I had to set my campaigns elsewhere. Then I discovered the FR in short articles Greenwood wrote for Dragon. It was about the time 2e came out and TSR made the very smart decision to make the FR the new official setting, and its been magic ever since ;-)

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Mad Zagyg]

The Forgotten Realms and the World of Greyhawk are essentially the same thing. The differences that exist between their geography and the names of the nations and the powerful NPCs are really not at all that significant. Converting adventures is also not that big of a deal.

People are deeply affected by their first positive experiences. My initial introductions to D&D were back when Greyhawk was really the only game in town. It was the best option in the early 80s. I remember how cool it was locating the hex on the map where this or that adventure module was located.

That brings me to one of the things that defines Greyhawk in a way that the Realms just doesn't really have. Classic adventures. Arguably the best adventures ever written. Say what you want about Gygax's novels; the man knew how to write an adventure. Against the Giants, Queen of Spiders, Temple of Elemental Evil, Tomb of Horrors, Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, Keep on the Borderlands are just some of the best, most original adventures ever written. Other classics written by other authors were also set in the World of Greyhawk. Possibly the best adventure ever made, White Plume Mountain, was set in Greyhawk. They still inspire the adventures that are being written by Wizards' present writers. They know, as I do, that Greyhawk is the greatest source to mine for the best of the best adventures.

Forgotten Realms doesn't have this. As I sit here, I can call to mind no classic adventures set in the Realms. The closest I can get is the terrible Ruins of Undermountain, which could have been great but instead has repeatedly been released as a giant map with hundreds of empty rooms and tiny sections detailed. "Feel free to fill in the empty rooms yourself!" Lazy and uninspired.

So what's my point?

I get why people love the Forgotten Realms. They either had their initial experiences of D&D set there, and so have developed a special connection to it. Or perhaps they loved reading the enormous amount of sourcebook material that has been released on it over the years. It's the most popular setting by far, so why not focus on it as your default? I get it.

It's just irritating to see things you love bastardized and/or ignored. That's all. For a sense of what I mean, it would be a lot like if the next adventure path features a villain called Sauron, who sets up shop in a new realm that appears in Faerun called Mordor. It's the hero's job to journey into the land of the Enemy himself and cast the One Finger-Sized Golden Loop into the fires of Mount Bad Fate. "At least one party member should play a halfling."

Greyhawk fans can convert, sure. That's what I've been doing. No problem.

But for context, imagine handing a vegetarian a bowl of beef stew and telling him to just pick out the parts of the stew he doesn't like. No matter how much he picks out the meat he's still going to taste the residue of what he doesn't like.

Every once in a while it would be nice to just get a big bowl of vegetable soup, if you know what I mean. I'd love to see them license out Greyhawk if they aren't going to use it. Of course, I can think of a hundred reasons why they wouldn't want to do that.

It is what it is, I guess. It's just a bummer.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Dragonsbane]

Wait. People still play in the Realms? *yawn*