Forgotten Realms...build up/bash

[Desdichado]

Yeah, I like FR quite a bit better in it's 3e incarnation than I did previously as well. Of course, much of the earlier FR stuff was when I was also contemptuous of D&D in general, and more of a latte-set pretentious rpg.net kinda guy.

That was just a phase, though -- I've since mellowed quite a bit. Not enough to be completely happy with FR, and I likely never will, but it's got stuff I borrow frequently now, whereas before I wouldn't even have looked at it.

 

[sniffles]

I play in FR quite a bit and generally find it enjoyable. Actually, the biggest flaw I would find with it is that there is almost too much information available. It seems that the developers have defined everything and left little room for roleplayers to mold the world to their own tastes. Of course that's not entirely true since one can always ignore the published materials where they conflict with one's own desires - the group I game with are doing just that with a campaign where we've created our own deity and city within the Realms. I always feel that the best response to something you don't like, however, is to simply ignore it. If some people don't care for the FR setting, fine, but why go out of their way to bash it?

 

[TheYeti1775]

Played it, Ran it, owned it, read it...

Now I just pillage it for tidbits, taking what I want.

 

[Henry]

I loved it, and still do - I own the FR Atlas, several of the PDF'ed box sets, and the 3E FR hardcover, and used it to run a 9-month-long campaign. I could still run a campaign there, enjoyably - it's just that many other games and setting currently preoccupy my time.

 

[Numion]

I really never noticed the problem of high-level NPCs or too great detail when DMing in the realms. I presume this is because I only got a couple of FR sourcebooks: FRCS, Magic of Faerun, Lords of Darkness. Not too much detail there - just enough I think.

About the NPCs .. I've only read the Drizzt books, so I'm not that familiar with all the high-level NPCs. Yes, the FRCS has stats for some of them, but it also says that the PCs are the real heros, and that the game should focus on them. I've only ever heard the argument on the internet that the NPCs should go adventuring instead of the PCs. A good argument for detracting posts about FR, but has no basis in reality in my experience.

I've got a couple of 2e FR supplement downloads, and I can see that those aren't up to par for the 3e incarnation of FR. So I guess much of the negative things have to do with 2nd edition realms.

 

[Roadkill101]

I adore FR, and when I used to run D&D based games, used it for a setting. So long as it's 2nd ed. or earlier.

The 1st ed. FR products I own are the Grey Box set, Undermountain set, and all the FR 1 thru 13(?) source books(well, I've given most of these away actually). The 2nd ed. stuff I own is Aurora's Whole Realms Catalog, a Volo's Guide (can't recall which), Maztica boxed set, Undermountain II boxed set, the Atlas, the Hardbacked campaign book, Pirates of the Sea of Fallen Stars and Evermeet sourcebooks. The only 3e stuff I own is the FRCS, I had The Unapproachable East but gave it away to friend.
That's alot of stuff now that I stop and look at it.

The 1st edition stuff was the best, a lot of fluffy material with some crunch and plenty of room for customization by a DM. A lot of the FR series source books we're released after 2nd ed. was out, but the source books in general (IMO) had more of a 1st ed. feel.
I personally noticed a big difference between 1st and 2nd ed FR products just by the physical appearances alone, let alone the by the writing styles.

It was the 2nd ed. products that seemed (IMO) to mark a decline in the FR product line, more crunch less fluff. I attribute this to the writers of the 2nd ed. material (or the bulk of it) as having less of an Ed Greenwood influence than writers of the earlier materials. That would be, Ed is consulted but never had written out or expanded on some of the topics now being written about. Plus the writers also had a larger influence from the FR Novels to include, which weren't as numerous when some of the earlier material was written.

3rd ed. and beyond, from what I've seen has just ruined the setting. Still plenty of fluff, especially with some of the timelines. But there's just too much crunch and too many details to suit my style of play. For example, 3rd ed. gives more information on the Imaskari and the creation of Raurin, and gives the crunchy numbers to go make it playable under the current rules w/out detailing every little aspect. Then there is the Champions of Ruins book which seems to me to nothing more than a specialised "Realms feel" Book of Vile Darkness.

So for me FR has become a slowly declining product with each successive edition release of the D&D game. At the start a good Homebrew setting with just enough detail to make it customizable and enjoyable for other DM's/players only to become the bastard splat-book setting dump for WoTC's/Hasbro's 3 and 3.x product line.

 

[Desdichado]

About the NPCs .. I've only read the Drizzt books, so I'm not that familiar with all the high-level NPCs. Yes, the FRCS has stats for some of them, but it also says that the PCs are the real heros, and that the game should focus on them. I've only ever heard the argument on the internet that the NPCs should go adventuring instead of the PCs. A good argument for detracting posts about FR, but has no basis in reality in my experience.

You've obviously never played some of the older FR modules then.

 

[Swordsage]

It was the 2nd ed. products that seemed (IMO) to mark a decline in the FR product line, more crunch less fluff. I attribute this to the writers of the 2nd ed. material (or the bulk of it) as having less of an Ed Greenwood influence than writers of the earlier materials. That would be, Ed is consulted but never had written out or expanded on some of the topics now being written about. Plus the writers also had a larger influence from the FR Novels to include, which weren't as numerous when some of the earlier material was written.

I have to disagree here. Quite simply, 2E provided the best FR sourcebooks to date and I don't understand the 'more crunch, less fluff' assertion. Products such as "Sea of Fallen Stars" and "Empires of the Shining South" are all about the realmslore, "Cloak & Dagger" was devoid of crunch and classic releases such as "Code of the Harpers", "Secrets of the Magister" and the 'god books' came into being, some of them benchmarks for the setting.

1E by comparison gave us broad, low-level of detail sourcebooks that yes, were good for DMs who enjoyed lots of elbow room and putting in a lot of their own stuff, but were hampered by low page count and some total product aberrations (like "The Great Glacier"). Sure, 2E had its share of turkeys as well ("Cormyr" and "Arcane Age: Netheril") but on the whole was more consistent than 1E - you knew that if you bought something with the name Greenwood, Schend or Boyd on the cover, that you were getting good stuff.

So for me FR has become a slowly declining product with each successive edition release of the D&D game. At the start a good Homebrew setting with just enough detail to make it customizable and enjoyable for other DM's/players only to become the bastard splat-book setting dump for WoTC's/Hasbro's 3 and 3.x product line.

No, GH is now the bastard splat-book setting dump for WotC/Hasbro now. FR in 3.XE has been initially uneven but IMO is now very much on the upswing. "Lost Empires of Faerun" and "Shining South" were solid products and "City of Splendors: Waterdeep" promises much. The crunch/fluff pendulum is swinging away from PrCs and feats to some degree (which is a good thing) but we have to realise that we are not buying encyclopedias, we are buying gaming products which, funnily enough, will always have stuff about the game in them. Makes perfect sense really. Good gaming to you.

-- The Swordsage

 

[Numion]

You've obviously never played some of the older FR modules then.

Obviously. I started gaming in the Realms with 3e. I don't see why I should judge it by its old supplements .. just like I don't judge D&D by 1st or 2nd editions, which I absolutely hated

 

[Ultrazen]

Overall feel sometimes seems heavily marketing driven, especially things related to the novels. I realize that businesses must make a profit, but when it feels like the campaign setting is more a marketing tool than a place in which to adventure, something isn't quite right.

Logic and continuity problems.

More high-level NPCs than you can shake a scimitar at. Why bother adventuring when there are so many more people who are better at it than you? How many caverns, ruins, and dungeons stocked with loot must there be to support that many adventurers? Where does all the gold come from? Why hasn't it run out yet?

Too many competing power groups competing in the same geographical areas.

Too many deities.

Good/Evil often oversimplified, especially in religion. For example, there really isn't a clear counterpart for Wee Jas, possibly my favorite core deity. Not quite evil, but definitely not good, with some followers who could be allys for a party and others who could be adversaries for the same party.

Over-developed north, under-developed south.

A rich and mysterious history that seems to be mostly ignored. For example, the Realms is riddled with portals whose origins are largely unknown, and there are two entirely unnatural deserts with whatever lies within them. However, the novel-driven metaplot just keeps advancing with yet another new crisis threatening the Realms that some powerful NPCs resolve. Basically it's too easy to lose a campaign in the metaplot if you try to use a lot of published material.

A little too much magic and divine intervention.

The Time of Troubles: Worst Metaplot Ever....


That's about it.


All that said, the current campaign is set in the Realms with significant amounts of the metaplot being blissfully ignored and somewhat fewer NPCs running around. The Realms are where the players decided they wanted to campaign, and I happen to like many of the places, names, and geographical features. But I needed to reduce and simplify as much as expand and detail before I could really call it my own.