Did any DM actually RUN the FR that way?

[Vraille Darkfang]

When it comes to 4th ed, I have my concerns, plus I'm content with 3rd (which is something I couldn't say about 2nd). However the recent Blog Comments about FR have set off some really loud warning bells in my head.

Mainly, their percieved "issues" with FR I see as Strengths or never have encountered.


(3) In 4E FR, the PCs matter. The PCs are the ones accomplishing the truly heroic quests. There aren't a bunch of high-level NPCs running around who can step in to clean up the PCs' messes or do things the PCs can't.

I've played in 100's of FR games. I've ran 100's more. I've NEVER, EVER encountered this in ANY FR games I've played in. (However, I have played in some really bad games when the DM had a 'pet' NPC, usually one of his former PC's basically do everything). If Elminster shows up to kill the dragon to steal the PC's thunder all the time, the problem is the DM, not the Campaign setting. I like have uber-pc's around to both challenge and keep PC's in check (had one FR Skills & Powers go from 1st to 37th level, only once did an Uber-PC step in, that was at 5th level when they released 45 Fire Elementals on the Docks at Waterdeep).

Ok, there was the time the PC said "I wish Elminster was here right now so you could kiss his hairy, naked ass!" while weaing a Ring of Three Wishes. In that case he asked for it, plus going on a quest for Bigby's Painless Hiney Hair Removal Underpants of Power was too hard to pass up.

I've alwayes used the Uber-FR Character as Ideals for the PC's to strive for. As real examples that the sky is the limit in FR.

If bad DM'ing is the problem, taking away the Uber-Guys ain't going to help.


(6) The 4E FR setting will have a smaller pantheon. In general, there will be less overlap in the gods' portfolios. Consequently, some 3E deities have been 'demoted,' effectively becoming agents or emissaries of more powerful gods. A handful of deities have been killed off. There are also a few new deities to fill holes.


This is the real killer for me. Overlap is good. Very good. Very similar faiths make for the best plot lines. Groups that to an outsider look identical, but their minor differences lead to such friction between the two. Like the Catholics & Protestants. 2 Groups of Christians with very similar ideologies that still spent a good amount of time killing each other over thos differences. And the various protestant sects are an even better example. My most memorable games all took minor faiths & put my own spin on them (or that particular sect) and ran with it.

The best game I ran was one where the main enemy was a Drow High Priest. A MALE high drow priest of Sevltegram (however you spell it). Took the party by surprise & darn near took out the entire party. Of course, Complex Racial patheons seem to have all gotten the ax for 4th ed.

I just don't see me switching to 4th ed.

It's not the rules (I'm sure they will be very good, some smart people putting a lot of time into it).

But the fluff changes (so far) have really started to make me very suspicious.

I like the Demons & Devils being similar, yet having minor distinctions that drive them to genocide. I LIKE that the average lay person can't tell wether it's a Demon or a Devil (Never was a fan of "Color Coded for your conveince" Dragons).

I've ran dozens of adventures on the Elemental Planes (some pretty low leve), and never once had a problem.

I liek complexity. Simplicity can only take you so far. Ideally you have simplistic overtures to get you started & layers of complexity you can dive into as you get better at DM'ing.



I'm just not getting it.

They keep talking about all these things (fluff-wise) that they are 'fixing', that I've just never encountered the problems they think are there.

Maybe I've been DM'ing for so long and in so many Campaign Worlds & Game Systems that I can make adjustments on the fly. (from an adventure standpoint, that is what I do).


Ok, a long way to ask:

What they keep saying are problems, I haven't noticed. Can people post some of their actual experiences to help me understand the thought process of the designers.

It could go a long ways to easing my nervousness about what's being done to the sandbox.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I'm not being flippant here, but have you not read pre-4E announcement FR threads here on ENWorld? The answer to your question is "yes, people absolutely did encounter those problems. Quite a few people, apparently."

 

[BlackMoria]

The answer to your question is "yes, people absolutely did encounter those problems. Quite a few people, apparently."

Which spawned cults of 'Death to Elminster', 'Death to Drizzt' and 'Death to the Chosen' which are quite vocal in their protests about NPCs.

I think they needed to chuck their dice at their lousy DMs first before they took to the streets. I don't mean to invalid how they feel but let's put the blame where it truly belongs.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Which spawned cults of 'Death to Elminster', 'Death to Drizzt' and 'Death to the Chosen' which are quite vocal in their protests about NPCs.

I think they needed to chuck their dice at their lousy DMs first before they took to the streets.

As much fun as that would be -- and frankly, I'd be happy to join in -- it wouldn't prevent bad DMs from existing and nothing will stop them from buying the 4E FRCS. Given that it's the first big setting to be released for 4E, and it's the most popular published campaign setting ever (since "homebrew" isn't a published setting by definition), I think WotC has something of a duty to prevent it from being too much of a trainwreck in the hands of bad DMs, since a bad enough D&D experience can drive people away from D&D altogether -- the folks at the RPG.net forums will be happy to provide lots of horror stories.

A good DM doesn't need much help. But you can't design a core product for someone who is, by definition, exceptional. You need to design it for the average DM and you need to do your best to idiot-proof it against the bad DMs.

 

[JohnSnow]

If nobody's using a particular element, what's it doing in the books? Isn't it just a waste of space? Space that could be better used covering something people ACTUALLY care about?

I don't understand why you are complaining about the removal of elements from the books that you yourself took out?

Unused depth is like having an entire spice cabinet you never use, and then complaining when they take it away.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I think the problem is less that the Chosen are solving the problems and more why aren't they solving the big problems?

I don't think many DMs have Elminster show up to save 1st-level PCs who ended up taking on too many orcs, as orcs aren't normally a massive threat. However, the big RS*E adventures that are fairly common could be dealt with by the extremely competent** uber-NPCs far more easily than the PCs.

Also, some people will simply dislike the way Chosen are portrayed in the novels, even if there is always an excuse for the Chosen to be away. The novels are part of the world, more so because they're canon. If killing Mystra makes just the novels better, I'm all for it. The complaints about Mary Sue characters in novels are legion, and IMO valid.

*Shaken, not shattered. Shattering only takes place once an edition.

**Their "novel" stats. They really are Mary Sues.

 

[BlackMoria]

The complaints about Mary Sue characters in novels are legion, and IMO valid.

And completely the fault of TSR and WOTC.

Salvatore, when he wrote the first novel featuring Drizzt, intended him to be minor character in that story, by Salvatore's own admission. Fans got 'Drizzt on the brain' and TSR told Salvatore to write more about Drizzt. Several novels later and Drizzt was starring in his own long running series....

Ed Greenwood doesn't write Elminster novels out a Mary Sue complex. He is told to write them and he does if he wants to get his novels printed. Once again, the public gets fixated on some characters and asks Ed to write novels about those characters, which become popular, requiring more novels about those same characters. On and on.

Ed on Candlekeep has said many times, as a author, he doesn't have much say about what novels he writes. TSR/WOTC give him a general outline of the story and what characters and he does the novel based on that outline. Ed has pitched a few outlines of his own and has quite a number refused and a few were accepted.

Novels about the Realms are 'managed' on high by WOTC. Each novel's outline and characters must be approved by the WOTC first and the author as a certain amount of artistic license of how to satisfy the outline but only so much.

FR novelists are not writing Mary Sue self gratifications, as many believe them. FR novelists write what WOTC tells them to write.

 

[The_Warlock]

I'm just not getting it.

They keep talking about all these things (fluff-wise) that they are 'fixing', that I've just never encountered the problems they think are there.

Maybe I've been DM'ing for so long and in so many Campaign Worlds & Game Systems that I can make adjustments on the fly. (from an adventure standpoint, that is what I do).

Ok, a long way to ask:

What they keep saying are problems, I haven't noticed. Can people post some of their actual experiences to help me understand the thought process of the designers.

It could go a long ways to easing my nervousness about what's being done to the sandbox.

Well, as others have said, there appears to be a population who have had problems as stated. I don't see any reason why people would feel the need to make that up.

On the other hand, I've been running a single FR campaign for 13 years. I have utilized a wide array of NPCs in interactions with my players' characters. Several of the "ubers" as they are being called. And they've never stolen the spotlight. They've pointed them in important directions, offered lore, provided patronage, and been allies and obstacles. So unfortunately, I've not experienced this problem as a FR specific.

I've been in campaigns where exceptionally powerful NPCs did the heavy lifting, and deus ex machina was the order of the day. And most of them were set in Greyhawk, for what it's worth, though I don't think that had anything to do with the setting itself either.

I think WD may have the right of it though - WotC may be trying to idiot-proof the game and the setting against gamers who run roughshod over common sense, and misuse material to play at the expense of their players.

I just think that there are a fair number of people that this approach won't appeal to because it feels like things are being dumbed down (regardless of the actual fact), and how it breaks with continuity of their established games. Also, the end result is that a fair amount of distaste probably comes from the concept that because of that break (based on the limited info to date), it feels like they are losing support for the setting as they have come to know it.

Also, I don't know if idiot-proofing such a game, or a setting, is truly possible when the first rule is and has been, Use what you like, ignore what you don't, make up stuff you want. In the end, bad GMs will still be bad GMs and will put back in the things that make them so. Good GMs may like what's produced, or may ignore the offering because they feel the material is either too bland, or too disconnected from what has gone before. Average GMs and New GMs may find it useful as a place to stretch their legs and figure out how to grow.

How that equals market share, brand viability and customer retention only the coming year plus will tell.

A long way to answer, but I have never suffered these problems they expound upon in my game, nor in the FR games I've been in. So, I guess I can't ease those concerns.

 

[comrade raoul]

You know, my favorite moment in the now-classic (goodness, how time flies!) Baldur's Gate was the part where you got to kill Drizzt and take his stuff. You were not only allowed, but encouraged (given the magnitude of the reward--he had the best gear in the game) to take him down and thereby turn your characters into the badass he was.

I really wish the epic-level expansion let you do the same thing with Elminster.

 

[Waylander the Slayer]

It's not a matter of good GMing or not, but a matter of plausability.

Example:

"Players go after Evil Warlord Blug Blug, a mid level bad guy, to save the town. GM runs it without any of the uber guys. Player wise ass quips up- so, why can elminister/chosen/ their 20th level apprentices wave their pinky finger and do this? ( there are numerous answers of course starting with that they are all out saving planar type doom, they don't exist, they are too busy to care etc.) but all of those reasons don'y jive on a continuous basis. "

I like what I have heard of the new changes for one and think it provides for a lot more creativity and flexibility for the GM, however I'll reserve judgement till I actually have the product in hand.