Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Primal" data-source="post: 4860307" data-attributes="member: 30678">     What strawman? If we apply the same logic to Eberron that’s been prevalent on this thread, it’s 2000+ or so pages to read until you “get it right” (note: I think it’s a silly argument, but that’s the common way for people to “attack” against FR).       Let’s think about this for a while… which sort of canon details are we talking about here? Official NPCs names/alignment/levels? Clothing, food, culture? History and maps? Religious lore? Because I know Eberron supplements have this kind of information, too… (and some of them, like religious tidbits, are here and ther, i.e. scattered in the whole array of books) which means that if I don’t have the right books, some Eberron diehard fan could point out, for example, that Breland does not have X or Y, and my version of Sharn’s city map is non-canonical or that Mror Hold dwarves don’t wage wars against the Warforged (which was supposed to be a major plot hook in my campaign). Whatever was the intention and selling point of the original designers doesn’t matter as much as how your players relate to the setting – that’s what’s more important. No, I didn’t; please read the whole post (and each individual paragraph) carefully through before replying. Look at the sentence “and the book from the FR1-16 series for the area you’re running in”; a single book, not all. As for the supplements, see below.    I hate quoting myself, but that list is supposed to give you the sourcebooks I personally think are the most relevant for “a *detailed* campaign set in the Realms”. Now, as I’ve said before, people have different kinds of preferences… some want more details, while others do not. Some take notes, others do not. Some prefer combat while others do not. And so on. If your group (and that’s a generic “you”) hates details and “name-dropping”, don’t do it.    My point is, many groups do just fine with CS, but if you want to have some extra info on, for example, religions, organizations, history and FR-specific spells and magic items, it’s in these books. Is 4E FRPG absolutely necessary to run 4E FR? Of course not, but it’s a useful supplement, don’t you agree?There’s nothing wrong in knowledge per se, i.e. doing research and being an expert in canon – if you flaunt it and use it to point out “errors” in someone’s campaign, then it’s another matter.     I personally do not know a single one; it almost seems like they’re an internet myth or something. Note that I don’t consider someone pointing out logical canon reasons for why the Spellplague couldn’t happen as written as “canon lawyering” – whenever RSEs take place, I assume the designers would play attention to internal consistency (which is another matter altogether, IMO). Hell, I wouldn’t consider someone pointing out that it’s not possible that the Mournlands is actually a country-sized Psionic entity I wrote into an official Eberron module (and this is just an example).        Just offer them a logical reason why X and Y are different in your campaign. You don’t need to “outsmart” such people.       And how often do you run into these situations during play? And how many people *actually* are such petty jerks that they’d point out during the session that some minor details is non-canonical? Anyway, he might remember one or two canon details that you are not aware of… however, you have creative control over your campaign. As I said above, tell him that Lord Lightlaughter was assassinated last year, and now (your NPC) Lady Moonshiver is the new local ruler in town X.     Again, that’s a GENERIC you, as in “someone” (passive form). What can I say? Do you think it would be any easier for me to grab ECS or ECG and run a game for a group that has read all the Eberron books and articles? I would have the same problem, *IF* the players are diehard fans who want everything to be 100% according to canon. And, it isn’t just about the depth of lore; I just don’t personally “get” Eberron or even like its steampunk-ish elements, so I don’t think it’s a good setting for me.     See above.    Well, your post implied that you had read about the city, since you “challenged” me with your “How would you feel… (and so on)” bit. So, I assumed you meant “How about if I replace a Chosen of Mystra with two DMPCs? Could you accept that?”. And I replied that I *might*, if the reason for these two dethroning/replacing/helping Alustriel was logical. And, I also assumed that if someone uses *only* the CS book to run FR, he’d read the *whole* book and spot Alustriel there.     Strawman? I think not. Look, haven’t people thrown around the idea of making major changes to canon? What if I thought it would be cooler that way? My point is, there are limits to our suspension to disbelief and how much we can accept changes to canon (changes that we’re aware of, that is); for example, some people cannot stand the “gamey” nature of 4E powers, but those same guys might very well be okay with replacing Waterdeep or Sharn with Greyhawk City (map and all).   Yes, exactly; the rest is up to what you and your group want out of the setting. For example, in one of the groups I used to play in the guys (DM included) would hardly ever read “fluff”, and I had a problem with that, but the rest didn’t. In my own group, you can’t just pick up FRCS and run with it – we all love details, so we use a lot of sourcebooks in our FR campaigns.    Um, now you’re probably confusing topics… I thought this thread was about having problems with players who have more knowledge about FR than you do -- *not* high-level NPCs or powerful organizations (and whether they ruin a DM’s campaigns or not)?       Well, I’m still not seeing it… more posters seem to be *AGAINST* FR and Elminster (and, sadly, Ed himself).  Then PROVE that I’m lying…     Well, kind of hard to prove without any hard numbers, right? If you have them, please post them. As for my anecdotal evidence, WoTC FR threads have almost died since 4E FR came out, and 95% or so of the posters in Candlekeep. And I don’t think I’ve seen much “FR love” around here… even less so in this thread (and the threads you pointed to). So, where are all the “new” fans? I also know that Rich Baker originally posted (on the WoTC boards) about upcoming FR supplements that would follow ‘Scepter Tower’, but later on when the books had been out for a while they announced that there would only be 3 books per setting. Furthermore, they have now reversed the order, i.e. publishing EPG before ECG, and that tells me that FRCG and the changes didn’t go over so well, which probably led to FRPG also selling far less than expected because of the outrage over the changes.       Well, show me your hard evidence then; prove me wrong. How do you know LFR is “going strong”? You try to refute my arguments with “You’re lying!” and “You’re wrong!”, but I don’t see any actual counterarguments from you…       We have? Who? Note that the OP is saying “I always hear these “canon lawyer" horror stories online but I never ran across them in real life.“ and “I've ran into them in message boards … but I really do wonder how common are they in typical Forgotten Realms D&D play?”. So, he (like me) hasn’t EVER *met* them in RL. And how are these quotes related to my question? Please, feel free to point out the posts that said “if your group doesn’t do this well, play in another setting”, because I don’t recall a single one.</blockquote>

Verification