Keep your filthy points of light away from me!

[Kae'Yoss]

True. But if I can have fun playing in a different setting, I play in a different setting. I would only drop the players if I couldn't have fun in any other setting. The setting is only one part of the whole gaming experience.

The players are another part. And I think that people who get bent out of shape if the DM uses his artistic license will probably have other issues, too, and they might not be the kind of people I would be comfortable playing with.

 

[Counterspin]

But he's not using his artistic license. If he knew the canon, he'd cleave to it, but there's so much of it he can't learn it in any reasonable time. This is a shared DM/PC problem, as I see it, with it's roots in the unreasonable size of existing FR canon.

 

[catsclaw227]

But he's not using his artistic license. If he knew the canon, he'd cleave to it, but there's so much of it he can't learn it in any reasonable time. This is a shared DM/PC problem, as I see it, with it's roots in the unreasonable size of existing FR canon.

Exactly my problem. I like the players I have been fortunate to game with (mostly), and I would rather change settings and accomodate all players and their sense of wonder, than play a campaign where the players know more about Elminster's relationship with a specific Harper than I do.

 

[Uzzy]

Obviously you've never dealt with a fandom player.

I have. Many times. It's a problem with players, not the setting. I've certainly not seen any evidence that the Realms as a setting brings out more players like this either.

 

[Scribble]

Personally I think the "points of Light" thing is a sort of continuation of an old "problem."

When 3e came out, I remember the powers that were, said they wanted to keep the number of worlds they produced low because TSR screwed up by "fracturing" the D&D market. People that bought Realms stuff, didn't buy Dragonlance stuff. People that bought Dragonlance didn't buy Dark Sun, and so on.

For TSR this was a problem because they had to make more of everything. More products meant more money spent, but less money put into each product.

WOTC I think, inadvertently fell into the same trap. Just from a different angle.

They made the core stuff "Greyhawk." It wasn't Greyhawk enough for the GH fans, but it also gave things a "setting." So again, peopel that bought Realms stuff got upset because it wasn't realms, and where would it go?

Even the outsourced worlds technically counted as worlds that they had to support.

If they make the main "world" generic, and sort of line up other worlds to include the genericness, then they can "hopefully" have less problems with people not wanting to use it because it isn't (insert campaign name here.)

I don't know that any of this is true, but it's what my thoughts are at least.

I think we'll even see less outsourced game worlds this time around, if any.

 

[kigmatzomat]

I have. Many times. It's a problem with players, not the setting. I've certainly not seen any evidence that the Realms as a setting brings out more players like this either.

It does but only in the sense that the Realms is setting with the most supplements, adventures, and novels because it has the largest fanbase. Percentage wise, there aren't any more FR fanboys than other settings but in D&D there are more FR fans and therefor more FR fanboys.

I'm something of an FR fan but there's just so much of it. For 3.x alone there are 23 edition supplements and another half dozen adventures that often include meta-plot. Much of the world has been discussed in at least 2 game supplements, a couple of adventures and probably multiple novels spanning 3 decades and 3.5 editions of the game.

For the setting to be viable for new GMs who almost definitely haven't read the same novels/supplements as their players, FR needs a RSE. Otherwise they would have to spend weeks, months, possibly years reading the backstory.

Versus RSE v.4e:

GM: "You enter the ruins of Aglarond. You see..."
Player: "The Simbul would never let the place be destroyed-"
GM: "The Simbul is gone. Elminster, missing. Aglarond is ruins. Do you want to search for something the Simbul may have left that would push back the chaos or sit and cry for the lost era?"
Player: "What about Kara-tur?"
GM: "Dunno, no one's ever come back. Maybe ruined, could be hungry. You can try to make it there after you deal with Aglarond."

Hey, that kinda sounds like the old FR, doesn't it?
"What's this Myth Drannor place?"
"Dunno, nobody comes back."

or
"What's at Bloodstone Pass?"
"Dunno, only two people got out."

 

[Uzzy]

It does but only in the sense that the Realms is setting with the most supplements, adventures, and novels because it has the largest fanbase. Percentage wise, there aren't any more FR fanboys than other settings but in D&D there are more FR fans and therefor more FR fanboys.

So they have a much larger profile among gamers? Ah, I see where that idea has come from now.

I'm something of an FR fan but there's just so much of it. For 3.x alone there are 23 edition supplements and another half dozen adventures that often include meta-plot. Much of the world has been discussed in at least 2 game supplements, a couple of adventures and probably multiple novels spanning 3 decades and 3.5 editions of the game.

I've always viewed that as depth, rather than an obstacle.

For the setting to be viable for new GMs who almost definitely haven't read the same novels/supplements as their players, FR needs a RSE. Otherwise they would have to spend weeks, months, possibly years reading the backstory.

From my own experience, I simply read the FRCS, which gave me enough backstory to run the Realms. Yes, there may be times when the players know more then the DM about a setting (If I tried running Dragonlance or Eberron, for instance, I know my players would know more about it then me!). But I, firstly, asked those players for a little assistance in specific areas where I didn't know enough. Secondly, I told them that 'Anything written in the sourcebooks may or may not be true. This is my game, with my slant on things.'

Anyway, a good Campaign Setting Sourcebook will eliminate any problems DM's should have with the amount of lore in a setting. That and big bold letters saying 'It's your game. Run it how you want!' on the front of every book.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

Versus RSE v.4e:

GM: "You enter the ruins of Aglarond. You see..."
Player: "The Simbul would never let the place be destroyed-"
GM: "The Simbul is gone. Elminster, missing. Aglarond is ruins. Do you want to search for something the Simbul may have left that would push back the chaos or sit and cry for the lost era?"

Heh...my DM would say:

GM: "See that skeleton pinned to the door? The one with the Aglarondian crown nailed to its head? That's her."

Brad

 

[kigmatzomat]

Anyway, a good Campaign Setting Sourcebook will eliminate any problems DM's should have with the amount of lore in a setting. That and big bold letters saying 'It's your game. Run it how you want!' on the front of every book.

Let's ignore the fact there's 3 CSS for Forgotten Realms (Grey box, 2e, 3e).

The biggest problem is the fanboys read those big bold letters and want the game run the way they want! "It's in the RAW! Run it how I want! Waaa!"

 

[HP Dreadnought]

I'm impressed FR fans even have a gag reflex by now.

I'm going to have to get my wife into the FR.