Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Psion" data-source="post: 2319578" data-attributes="member: 172">Part of it is FR's fault, and part of it isn't.I'm a hard sell when it comes to close-to-typical D&amp;D settings. It's just not worth buying into a product line that is going to make me feel constricted when I can have so much more creative freedom doing my own thing. So, really, if you are putting out any close-to-typical D&amp;D fantasy setting, the cards are stacked against you from the get-go in my book.That said, FR gets extra marks against it in my book because it is often annoyingly static and hidebound. Yes, I am one of those folks who feels that Elminster is blatantly a mary sue version of EG. Yes, I am one of those folks who feel that NPCs hog too much of the limelight in FR, and 3e FR has not done near enough to rectify that... and nor could it, really, given the importance of novel sales to the line.If you dig FR, that's cool. But that's why I don't feel the need to heavily invest in it.AFAIAC, the strength of the setting is its content. I can use the content without buying into the setting's background. And happily do so when a book comes up that looks like it has highly portable material that would be a good match to my game (the last one being serpent kingdoms.)Edit: Actually, I'd go so far that some Realms components are better out of the Realms. As it stands, as some have pointed out, the Realms is a giant &quot;kitchen sink&quot; of setting components. By pulling choice components out, you have a better chance to highlight the individual components instead of miring them down in the morass.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Psion, post: 2319578, member: 172"] Part of it is FR's fault, and part of it isn't. I'm a hard sell when it comes to close-to-typical D&D settings. It's just not worth buying into a product line that is going to make me feel constricted when I can have so much more creative freedom doing my own thing. So, really, if you are putting out any close-to-typical D&D fantasy setting, the cards are stacked against you from the get-go in my book. That said, FR gets extra marks against it in my book because it is often annoyingly static and hidebound. Yes, I am one of those folks who feels that Elminster is blatantly a mary sue version of EG. Yes, I am one of those folks who feel that NPCs hog too much of the limelight in FR, and 3e FR has not done near enough to rectify that... and nor could it, really, given the importance of novel sales to the line. If you dig FR, that's cool. But that's why I don't feel the need to heavily invest in it. AFAIAC, the strength of the setting is its [i]content[/i]. I can use the content without buying into the setting's background. And happily do so when a book comes up that looks like it has highly portable material that would be a good match to my game (the last one being [i]serpent kingdoms[/i].) Edit: Actually, I'd go so far that some Realms components are [i]better[/i] out of the Realms. As it stands, as some have pointed out, the Realms is a giant "kitchen sink" of setting components. By pulling choice components out, you have a better chance to highlight the individual components instead of miring them down in the morass. [/QUOTE]

Verification