D&D 5E How do you feel about the Forgotten Realms?
- Thread starter DM Howard
- Start date
sgtscott658
First Post
The Mirrorball Man
Aventurier
Indeed, that those classics of fantasy literature are slightly more interesting than a D&D setting is a matter of personal opinion.
Actually, there was one setting out there.
Judges Guild started in 1976 and the Wilderlands of High Fantasy campaign setting came out in 1977 (32 pages plus 5 large world region maps). There were actually 4 booklets in the Wilderlands campaign series along with dozens of adventure modules that filled in a lot of the details.
Greyhawk came out as a rules supplement in 1975, but it wasn't a published campaign setting until 1980 (also 32 pages).
Forgotten Realms came out as a campaign setting in 1987 (the first decent campaign setting).
aramis erak
Legend
Arneson's First Fantasy Campaign also had a map and text about the locations in 1977. Also a Judges Guild Product.
By the time FR came out, there were several, including the beginnings of RuneQuest, to compare it to.
Mercule
Adventurer
I voted "hate it". To be 100% honest, though, I'm not sure I'll ever be able to give it a fair shake because of the perception that it displaced Greyhawk as the implied setting. Actually, it'd be more accurate to say that Greyhawk was an implied setting for 1E, but the Realms have become an assumed setting. Folks have talked about "Gygaxian prose", and I think what he did with the 1E implied setting is something that hasn't been replicated in any other edition. The way 5E references FR feels very ham-handed and, frankly, annoys me -- I had to bite my tongue when one of my players (with years of experience and full knowledge of my "love" for the Realms) let me know he'd selected the Calishite sub-race for our Eberron game.
I never "loved" Greyhawk, but it was a great vanilla world. I used the gold and red box as a guide to help me organize my homebrew. It was also neutral ground for any game that was "pure" D&D. Finally, it was simple enough that my friends who only occasionally sat in the DM chair could use it without much concern for canon, but had enough information that there was actually some sort of flavor. If a DM really liked some of the Greyhawk setting, he could easily make the world his own because there was very low risk of additional, conflicting detail being published -- until Greyhawk Wars, etc. Changing things like elven skin/hair color to differ from the PHB also makes it less "pure" D&D, because you have to unlearn some things from the PHB (note: it would be even worse to make the PHB conform to the Realms).
When I first saw the FR gray box, I was interested, at first. I liked some of the bits of flavor: racial greetings/farewells, sample alphabets, etc. I did not like the map. I can remember being distinctly turned off by having a gigantic desert right next to a gigantic glacier. Ultimately, it had the feeling of a second-rate Greyhawk. Not bad, really, but far from great. I expected it to fade away fairly quickly and was flabbergasted when it became a huge success. I played a few games, mostly PBEM, set in the Realms and the setting aspects were always marginal, at best. They were generally overbearing, with players and DMs prone to pedantry.
I read some of the novels, including Salvatore's early stuff and the series with Kelemvor, etc. (forget the name). I found it uninspiring and poorly written, even the stuff others were raving about. After several Drizz't clones got played in games I was in, I started to really hate flagship NPCs (and drow). The Realms has those in spades.
I left D&D for other games, for several years. I came back shortly before the 3E announcement, after running into an old college buddy who was running Dragon Mountain (set in Greyhawk and/or "generic D&D setting #45"). I was absolutely appalled at how prevalent the Realms had become. For all appearances, it was inseparable from D&D. Since I considered it a second rate setting, this did not give me hope. But, 3E sounded promising, so what the heck? I will give props to the 3E hardcover, though. I very nearly bought it as a guide for re-organizing my own setting, but I couldn't stop the churning of my stomach -- very well laid out. I wasn't happy with the amount of attention FR received, even though Greyhawk was supposed to be the "default" setting (which actually wasn't a good idea, anyway; see above commentary about "implied" settings).
At this point, I just feel like I've missed out on close to 30 years of history with a staggering amount of supplements. Yeah, I knew I don't have to read them all, but that would leave me with the nagging feeling that I'm violating some element that might come up, later, especially for the next Realms-shattering event or (poorly written) novel. I have no problem with intentionally changing something about a published setting, adventure, or rule. I just see not having to think about it being the key selling point of a setting.
So, why do I loathe the Realms?
There are a few things that I like, though.
The Wall of Souls is a nifty solution to the problem of agnostics in a world where the gods are a provable fact.
Many of the "bad guys" have motivations that are reasonable enough to be relatable -- certainly lots of them are more empathetic than, say, Stalin.
I never "loved" Greyhawk, but it was a great vanilla world. I used the gold and red box as a guide to help me organize my homebrew. It was also neutral ground for any game that was "pure" D&D. Finally, it was simple enough that my friends who only occasionally sat in the DM chair could use it without much concern for canon, but had enough information that there was actually some sort of flavor. If a DM really liked some of the Greyhawk setting, he could easily make the world his own because there was very low risk of additional, conflicting detail being published -- until Greyhawk Wars, etc. Changing things like elven skin/hair color to differ from the PHB also makes it less "pure" D&D, because you have to unlearn some things from the PHB (note: it would be even worse to make the PHB conform to the Realms).
When I first saw the FR gray box, I was interested, at first. I liked some of the bits of flavor: racial greetings/farewells, sample alphabets, etc. I did not like the map. I can remember being distinctly turned off by having a gigantic desert right next to a gigantic glacier. Ultimately, it had the feeling of a second-rate Greyhawk. Not bad, really, but far from great. I expected it to fade away fairly quickly and was flabbergasted when it became a huge success. I played a few games, mostly PBEM, set in the Realms and the setting aspects were always marginal, at best. They were generally overbearing, with players and DMs prone to pedantry.
I read some of the novels, including Salvatore's early stuff and the series with Kelemvor, etc. (forget the name). I found it uninspiring and poorly written, even the stuff others were raving about. After several Drizz't clones got played in games I was in, I started to really hate flagship NPCs (and drow). The Realms has those in spades.
I left D&D for other games, for several years. I came back shortly before the 3E announcement, after running into an old college buddy who was running Dragon Mountain (set in Greyhawk and/or "generic D&D setting #45"). I was absolutely appalled at how prevalent the Realms had become. For all appearances, it was inseparable from D&D. Since I considered it a second rate setting, this did not give me hope. But, 3E sounded promising, so what the heck? I will give props to the 3E hardcover, though. I very nearly bought it as a guide for re-organizing my own setting, but I couldn't stop the churning of my stomach -- very well laid out. I wasn't happy with the amount of attention FR received, even though Greyhawk was supposed to be the "default" setting (which actually wasn't a good idea, anyway; see above commentary about "implied" settings).
At this point, I just feel like I've missed out on close to 30 years of history with a staggering amount of supplements. Yeah, I knew I don't have to read them all, but that would leave me with the nagging feeling that I'm violating some element that might come up, later, especially for the next Realms-shattering event or (poorly written) novel. I have no problem with intentionally changing something about a published setting, adventure, or rule. I just see not having to think about it being the key selling point of a setting.
So, why do I loathe the Realms?
- Replaced Greyhawk as the "vanilla" setting
- Too much detail to truly be a "vanilla" setting
- The flavor it does bring (i.e. the non-vanilla parts) is generally unappealing
- Steals resources from other settings/projects I'd rather see made
- Too many "name brand" NPCs
- Subtle differences from PHB (moon elves, etc.)
- Too high-magic for my taste (Greyhawk was about right)
- Too high-level for my taste (name-level should be rare)
- Stupid maps (YMMV)
- Too much history to bother with, at this point
- Too many world/continent-spanning secret societies (Harpers, etc.)
There are a few things that I like, though.
The Wall of Souls is a nifty solution to the problem of agnostics in a world where the gods are a provable fact.
Many of the "bad guys" have motivations that are reasonable enough to be relatable -- certainly lots of them are more empathetic than, say, Stalin.
ThirdWizard
First Post
As someone who doesn't touch FR partially because of the massive amount of canon, I thought I could offer some thoughts.
Since I don't know about FR, I'll use something I do know about as an example: The Dresden Files. I've run a few games in the Dresden universe, so I can try to use that as an analogy. In any setting that's been fleshed out like that, you have the opportunity to use those details to your advantage. For example, water acts as a magical neutralizer in DF. I was able to use rain in an adventure that involved a powerful summoned demon antagonist to the PCs. The rain acted as a way for the PCs to lure the demon out to help weaken it. That was a cool part of that particular game.
Had I not known details about DF and had the rain included, the players may well have inferred something that was not present. When they had the brilliant idea to use water against the demon, there would have been a disconnect between expectations (foreshadowing if you will) and the DM's understanding of the world and cause/effect. A perfectly viable plan would have fallen down, and a major setting change (water neutralizing magic) would have made the whole thing fallen flat if the DM just said it didn't work that way in his game because he didn't know and was "making the game his own."
This doesn't have to be a mechanical thing. It could be two major NPC groups working together in game when in canon they hate each other causing a disconnect between player expectations and DM plans. What would look like a wink-nod from the DM is just the DM not knowing how the setting works.
And, if I don't know how the setting works, then why am I DMing a game set in that setting? (Say that three times fast). I'd rather stick with something that I'm comfortable with or something that is assumed to be more malleable like a homebrew setting. If I'm just going to prefix the campaign by saying "Don't use any knowledge of FR in this FR game," then why am I setting it there? Because, if no assumptions can be made, you lose the main benefit of a published setting. I play Planescape, and I know Planescape, and I know when to bend and shape it and when to use canon because I'm intimately familiar with it.
sgtscott658
First Post
Hi-
To me the Realms is so cool because it is such a rich and detailed setting. In a way, the Realms remind me of J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle-earth but with more charm.
To me the Realms is so cool because it is such a rich and detailed setting. In a way, the Realms remind me of J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle-earth but with more charm.
Similar Threads
