New May WotC cover art

[ShinHakkaider]

Well, why do you dislike the Realms?

Honestly, I have my reasons but I'm not going to list them in any great detail as I dont want this to decend into (for example):

ME: *here are my reasons for not liking the Realms*

YOU: *those sound like player issues as opposed to problems with the setting. Maybe you should give it another try*

ME: *I just stated that I dont like the Realms. I don't want to give it another try.*

I just don't like the setting, I dont like the players who have a slavish devotion to playing in canon and in a connected note I dont care for the NPC's who seem to be at the center of the action as opposed to the player characters. It's partially the same issue that I have whenever I want to run a Star Wars game, the players want to be directly involved in canon and I dont want to run an in canon game. And I like and know a hell of a lot more about Star Wars than I do about the Realms. That's just it in a nutshell.

Youre probably going to attempt to argue otherwise, but there's no reason for me to revisit the Realms. I don't like it and I dont find the setting interesting.

 

[blargney the second]

Said Sam I Am.

 

[Greg V]

Would you like it in a box? Could you like it with a fox?

I would not like it in a box. I could not, would not with a fox.

I do not like that Waterdeep, I do not like that Hellgate Keep.

I do not like that mage Khelban (sorry, stretching here), I don't like FR, Sam I am.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Would you like it in a box? Could you like it with a fox?

I would not like it in a box. I could not, would not with a fox.

I do not like that Waterdeep, I do not like that Hellgate Keep.

I do not like that mage Khelban (sorry, stretching here), I don't like FR, Sam I am.

D00d, he asked...

 

[catsclaw227]

I just don't like the setting, I dont like the players who have a slavish devotion to playing in canon and in a connected note I dont care for the NPC's who seem to be at the center of the action as opposed to the player characters. It's partially the same issue that I have whenever I want to run a Star Wars game, the players want to be directly involved in canon and I dont want to run an in canon game. And I like and know a hell of a lot more about Star Wars than I do about the Realms. That's just it in a nutshell.

Personally, I don't run the Realms for similar reasons. First, I don't know enough about the canon or the many, many books and what has happened and who's who. If I were to advertise for players in an FR game, they would know a lot more than I would about the setting. And quite frankly, I want to be "the expert" in the setting I am GMing. I like Scarred Lands, because I don't buy into the meta-story and it's fairly easy to run. I like the Wilderlands because of its open ended nature. I like Greyhawk because.... well, because I decided I didn't want to change the setting of my Savage Tide campaign, and it's in an area that my players know very little about.

I might try Eberron, but I would likely try either the War of the Burning Sky AP, a homebrew --> Oathbound game or a game set in the Warlords of the Accordlands next.

The Realms just have TOO MUCH canonical history for my taste.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Honestly, I have my reasons but I'm not going to list them in any great detail as I dont want this to decend into (for example):

ME: *here are my reasons for not liking the Realms*

YOU: *those sound like player issues as opposed to problems with the setting. Maybe you should give it another try*

ME: *I just stated that I dont like the Realms. I don't want to give it another try.*

So they just don't interest you? Just say so.

But saying that you don't like something and then not giving any details always gives me the idea that it's really irrational and actually not the setting's problem, but the player's (or the problem of someone he knows)

I dont like the players who have a slavish devotion to playing in canon

To each his own, but of course, the Realms don't have to be played that way.

and in a connected note I dont care for the NPC's who seem to be at the center of the action as opposed to the player characters.

And that's just wrong. They may be at the center of the action in the novels, but that's be4cause you can't write novels with player characters.

I have been playing in the Realms for some time now, and I never took a back seat to any NPC. I ran a couple of campaigns there, too, and my players weren't just sidekicks to any NPC, either. They were in the spotlight all the time.

They won't save the whole world alone, from anything - the Realms are a living, breathing world where more things happen than just what the PCs are doing - but neither are their deeds insignificant.

Youre probably going to attempt to argue otherwise, but there's no reason for me to revisit the Realms. I don't like it and I dont find the setting interesting.

No, I won't force you to try the Realms, but I have to say what you predicted earlier: It's not the setting's fault. It may encourage some of these things, but I know from personal experience that it's very easy to use the Realms in other ways.

I'm the only regular member of our gaming circle who knows the Realms well. When I am the DM, I use that knowledge to provide a living background for my party's exploits, and when I play, I keep it at the back of my head but won't contradict the (inevitably) less informed DM on anything he made up by himself. It's supposed to be assimilated.

 

[Ranger REG]

The Realms just have TOO MUCH canonical history for my taste.

Really? Because I think Toril has too little canonical history.

If you don't like it, change it. It's not written in stone. The history only serve as a backstory, and possible adventure hooks for your group. If you're too intimidated ... scared ... by the campaign world's history, I can't help you.

 

[Vanuslux]

I'm on the fence with this one. As far as I've developed my homebrew world I haven't felt the need to make a place for the drow as even though I loved Drizzt in the first three books he was in (where he and his friends had adventures that didn't revolve entirely around his self-hating drow angst) I for the most part don't need nega-elves in my world and FR drow particularly make me roll my eyes with their over the top uber-evilness.

However, I wouldn't be adverse to making a place for them if this book managed to break away from the things I hate about FR drow and actually give me an evil race with a somewhat believable culture that doesn't consistantly have their race doing extremely stupid and self-destructive things just to show how badass and eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll they are.

So I'll just have to wait and see what they've done with it.

 

[catsclaw227]

Really? Because I think Toril has too little canonical history.

If you don't like it, change it. It's not written in stone. The history only serve as a backstory, and possible adventure hooks for your group. If you're too intimidated ... scared ... by the campaign world's history, I can't help you.

Maybe I should rephrase it. I have friends that have read a ton of the FR books and they tell me that there's so many events that have happened in the books (especially in 2e) that has reflected itself in the FR supplements that have come out. I can't tell you what they are, since they were speaking generally.

I am not intimidated by campaigns, I prefer published settings over homebrew because I don't have time to dedicate as much time to making the stew as I would like. But I guess I prefer settings that are essentially "point in time" settings.

I've heard that Kalamar is like that, though I haven't read enough to form an opinion about that, but Mark Plemmons says it's one of their selling points.

I don't like the meta-plot that the Scarred Lands novels played out so we didn't include that history, but otherwise I like Scarred Lands.

Wilderlands is great. That's all I have to say about that.

Actually there is meta-plot in the Iron Kingdoms world that is based upon the happenings in the Witchfire trilogy, but that sounds like a great campaign.

The truth is, I have almost all the 3e FR books. I like some of the flavor and I steal from it regularily, but there seems to be soooo much history and events and things that have played out since it came out that I don't have time to catch up on... well, maybe the breadth of the history of Toril IS intimidating to me. Maybe overwhelming is a better word. Or maybe there's alternatives that are just better suited to my campaign ideas.

I will likely DM War of the Burning Sky after my Savage Tide campaign since that is a world that seems to suit my style of DMing. Fleshed out, but not really.

 

[Ranger REG]

The truth is, I have almost all the 3e FR books. I like some of the flavor and I steal from it regularily, but there seems to be soooo much history and events and things that have played out since it came out that I don't have time to catch up on... well, maybe the breadth of the history of Toril IS intimidating to me. Maybe overwhelming is a better word. Or maybe there's alternatives that are just better suited to my campaign ideas.

Don't try to take it all in. Just take what's in the FRCS and the local "base" region your group's party will be adventuring. Never mind what's going on in Unapproachable East if your group have no intention of going there, for example.