D&D General Playing Nicely In The Sandbox

Whether we’re talking about real-world politics or playing in an ongoing fantasy roleplaying campaign that uses an established shared setting (like the Realms or Golarion or Krynn), there are ways of “playing nice,” and there’s also behaviour that’s not considered nice. Breaking the rules, some call it. Running around smashing things is generally considered not nice, though it does tend to...

Whether we’re talking about real-world politics or playing in an ongoing fantasy roleplaying campaign that uses an established shared setting (like the Realms or Golarion or Krynn), there are ways of “playing nice,” and there’s also behaviour that’s not considered nice. Breaking the rules, some call it.

20151117_Sword-Coast-Map.jpg

Running around smashing things is generally considered not nice, though it does tend to be what adventurers (your typical party of Player Characters in most games) do. But here and now, as my pen swirls and flourishes, I’m thinking more of the referees of said games, and their überplots and Big Events that hopefully happen in the background and spur player adventures—rather than happening directly above the heads of Player Characters, and letting things, ahem, fall where they may.

When working in the Realms, Jeff Grubb had a firm house rule of “Don’t Blow Up The Moon,” and most shared settings, from Hollywood to your own gaming table, have a formal or informal-but-understood rule of “Don’t Break Or Steal The Toys, And Put Them Back Where You Found Them.”

Or to put this more concretely, if Kronth The Second, Lion of Ulmaria, is King of Ulmaria when you start game play or storytelling, he’d better be King when you finish, unless you have permission from whoever’s running the IP to the contrary.

If you are the DM of your own campaign, or a writer penning your own fantasy epic, of course you have your own permission. But the thinking behind this rule should still bear on the situation: humankind thrives because of change, but individual humans hate change unless they hate their status quo more than the uncertainty change brings. And despite what you might hear to the contrary, most gamers are human, and so, hate change. They’ve gone to all the trouble to learn and understand about this or that imaginary setting and its weird rules of magic and religion and monsters with odd perilous powers, and they hate having nasty DM surprises sprung on them, that leave them feeling they don’t understand the setting all around them. Do you remember your first day at school, or in a new country, or at a new job, lost and wandering, with any great fondness?

Or to put this is everyday terms, dethrone Kronth only for a good storytelling reason, not merely to stir the pot or because you’re bored and want a big headline.

The downfall of a god or an empire or a Great Old One is certainly news, and is probably very exciting for those at Ground Zero while it’s happening (though I suspect most of them would use more colourful words than “very exciting”), but if it happens onstage becomes a hard act to follow, and if it happens onstage more than once has the nasty tendency to kick off an arms race that rushes hard and fast into hollow anticlimax and cheapening everything and the jumping of too-handy sharks.

What engenders awe today will all too easily become ho-hum humdrum tomorrow. Which is why precedents matter and are perilous. I recall grown-up scientists and sf writers weeping openly when a rocket with people aboard first successfully launched, soaring from Earth up into the heavens, because it was such a long-pursued dream for them. Children today are used to launches and intergalactic empires and space battles; for many of them, that particular awe is long gone.

But there is always a first time, for every one of us. Those first times are precious; don’t waste them. The first time that gamers around a table really know fear…or awe, or burst into applause together over some achievement that is shared but entirely imaginary.

And more than that: the first time they feel like they belong. That they are part of a fellowship, a band of brothers (sisters, sharers of the Secret Faith, or fellow tentacled things) that stand for a common cause and have endured hardships together and learned to rely on each other. That they have done something that matters. A feeling we tend to have all too rarely in the real world, and all too fleetingly—and worse, that fades into a sour regard of what we did now being ignored, or swept aside, or cheapened by something else that happened subsequently.

It’s all too easy, when telling tales, to go straight to the top. We look over the shoulder of the king, or the princess, or the villain who’s about to murder both of them. Royalty is where power resides in our typical imagined quasi-medieval kingdom. We want to be there, where things happen that matter. And Hollywood and our television screens have taught us that will be there, that we will see for ourselves those key moments when important things happen, or are said, or are revealed.

So we expect to be on the spot when we’re reading fiction, or sitting at a gaming table. We feel cheated when a DM has things happen offstage, or last night when we were busy doing something else exciting. If we, the Company of the Bright Bold Blades, are sent by the dying King Ravilonadar to wrest the fabled glowing, floating magical gem known as the Heart of the Dragon from the Dread Dungeon of the Wyrm Undying because its touch will restore him to health, and we battle the dragon from beyond the grave and a lot of other nasty critters to bring the Heart forth and rush it to the king, we’re going to feel profoundly cheated if the DM smilingly informs us old Ravilonadar coughed and died as we were riding up to the Castle. Things aren’t supposed to happen that way!

Now, if the DM informs us the evil Vizier saw us from the battlements and rushed to stab the king with a poisoned dagger before we could get there, that’s different. We can turn our “We wuz robbed!” into fury and get after the Vizier with a vengeance.

And if we have a really good DM, we’ll be standing in the chaos of a kingdom that has boiled up into the open dagger-wielding strife of many competing factions all wanting their own stooge on the throne, and the Vizier trying to frame us for Ravilonadar’s murder, and foul magic is at work down in the dungeons beneath us as cultists summon and release eldritch, squamous tentacled horrors to feed on the courtiers and terrorize the populace, and a rival kingdom is about to invade, and we are indeed right there, on the spot, as things happen that matter.

But you wouldn’t want all of this to happen every Thursday, would you?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Ed Greenwood

Ed Greenwood

Forgotten Realms Creator

Mournblade94

Adventurer
4e Realms was 100% the reason i stopped 4e full stop and didnt buy a product until 5e players handbook. played 4e until the FR guide came out. then just stopped, and boycotted anything wotc until they switched systems and tried to fix the FR.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

jasper

Rotten DM
....Now, if the DM informs us the evil Vizier saw us from the battlements and rushed to stab the king with a poisoned dagger before we could get there, that’s different. We can turn our “We wuz robbed!” into fury and get after the Vizier with a vengeance......
1. NO. We still being robbed, the Dummy Master just use a different flavor text.
2. The mentioning of ..“Don’t Break Or Steal The Toys, And Put Them Back Where You Found Them.” I don't think I in the same realms /universe as the OP. I saw too many good shared world fiction series ruined in the 80s and 90s where authors were breaking other authors toys. And I been told here/there and in the past I had to follow the "canon" or I was wrongbadfun DM.
3. The campaign books are nice but I don't have follow them. The fiction books were nice junk fiction. I read them because I was supporting the company but forgot most of them a week after I read them.
 

Marandahir

Crown-Forester (he/him)
4e Realms was 100% the reason i stopped 4e full stop and didnt buy a product until 5e players handbook. played 4e until the FR guide came out. then just stopped, and boycotted anything wotc until they switched systems and tried to fix the FR.

As someone who NEVER played in the Realms in earlier editions, I ADORED the Spellplague and shaken up lore of the 4e Realms. It breathed new life into the setting and allowed an on-ramp for new players.

Except the distances. Distances on 4e maps don't make any sense.
 

Lord Rasputin

Explorer
If your players can't or are discouraged from completely destroying your campaign then you are failing as a DM.

Yep. This is a big reason not to get attached to your pre-crafted storylines. Even better yet, ditch them entirely, and find threads the players like in play. They love the freedom.

Sorry Mr. Greenwood, but Elminster died years ago along with Drizzt in my campaign. In my alternate version of the Realms, the world is scared with the actions of player characters, in my opinion, if the PC's cannot effect change in their world, then we might as well stop playing and just wait for your next book to arrive at Barnes and Noble.

Elminster may be the most unlikeable NPC ever.
 

Mournblade94

Adventurer
As someone who NEVER played in the Realms in earlier editions, I ADORED the Spellplague and shaken up lore of the 4e Realms. It breathed new life into the setting and allowed an on-ramp for new players.

Except the distances. Distances on 4e maps don't make any sense.
That was it though. IT was not made for the fans and that was kind of Ed Greenwood's point. Why not just make a new Campaign setting (Which 4e realms virtually was)? Instead it caused a huge rift among the fans and was a major contributor to the edition wars. What 4e Realms told me was: THis new rules system won't work for your campaign so you should start a new one. The old fans were left behind, and the rules system suffered for it.

Well I didn't. didn't touch a product after the 4e realms guide. I just switched to Pathfinder and gave feedback that I wanted the old realms back. 5e got rid of enough 4e things to satisfy me, and the 5e realms pretty much made it so that the spellplague history was barely there. They did that, so I came back.

3rd edition ended with 3 adventures leading up to the spellplague. Anauroch being the last. Basically if your players were successful you would have prevented Shar's plans. The writers did exactly what Ed Greenwood said you shouldn't do and just wrote the spellplague anyway. Who cares what the PC"s Did? They just wrote it as a failure.

Richard Baker (one of the decision makers) on his blog wrote it was one of 4e's biggest missteps. I still follow Richard Baker and one of the reasons I play ESO is because he and many of the old 2nd edition Forgotten Realms people work on Elder SCrolls online currently.
 

Einlanzer0

Explorer
I love the bit about player's hating change. It is why Campaign Settings with a meta-plot are so often poorly received by players. I think its a great reason why 4e Forgotten Realms was so contentious. Sure as a DM you could ignore the Spellplague but I think as much as gamers hate change they also have an obsession with "canon" or the "official version."

I think its a big reason why I like Eberron so much. (Not implying I don't love the Forgotten Realms Ed they will always be special to me.) Despite being released for three editions, the start year of Eberron is always the same and there are no changes to the steady state world. I can run three campaigns, blow-up the world six times over and then go back to the beginning. Like an alternate reality or whatever.

I like Eberron substantially less than FR, but this is everything. They do the FR more harm than good by treating it like a comic book story and forcing the timeline forward each edition with contrived, over the top plots that just divide fans. And it wasnt just 4e that did this - it's happened every edition. 4e was just the most egregious case.

In my view, nothing would benefit the realms more than a 1e reboot and permanently baselining it there as a campaign setting. The different stories that have taken place since 1e are not invalidated, they just become different author/DM forks in the timeline.

Regarding the original post by Ed Greenwood - I'm not sure if I read it correctly, but if I did, I disagree with most of it. Even if he created the FR, the FR no longer belongs to any specific authority. It exists as a universe we all share in the experience and the telling of. It's concerning to me if he doesn't see it that way.

I see no reason whatsoever to do anything other than precisely what I and the players want to do with it at my table. In fact, the notion that there's a central authority running and developing the realms from edition to edition, removing that agency from players & DMs, is a lot of what's led us where we are with the Realms and caused it to become a lot more of a joke setting than it used to be. It's misguided, and has been since 2nd edition.

It took me awhile to get to that point with the Forgotten Realms. To flagrantly ignore the "canon" and make it my own. These days any FR campaigns I run start in the year 1350 DR, which I believe is 2 years prior to the 1st FR Box Set. But this allows me to pick and choose the things I like from any edition of the Realms and not worry about continuity. I make my own continuity.

This is the correct approach, and it's why the #1 thing the FR needs in 5e is a reboot of 1e to rebaseline the setting to a healthy status quo that everyone can start from once and for all.
 
Last edited:


Marandahir

Crown-Forester (he/him)
That was it though. IT was not made for the fans and that was kind of Ed Greenwood's point. Why not just make a new Campaign setting (Which 4e realms virtually was)? Instead it caused a huge rift among the fans and was a major contributor to the edition wars. What 4e Realms told me was: THis new rules system won't work for your campaign so you should start a new one. The old fans were left behind, and the rules system suffered for it.

Well I didn't. didn't touch a product after the 4e realms guide. I just switched to Pathfinder and gave feedback that I wanted the old realms back. 5e got rid of enough 4e things to satisfy me, and the 5e realms pretty much made it so that the spellplague history was barely there. They did that, so I came back.

3rd edition ended with 3 adventures leading up to the spellplague. Anauroch being the last. Basically if your players were successful you would have prevented Shar's plans. The writers did exactly what Ed Greenwood said you shouldn't do and just wrote the spellplague anyway. Who cares what the PC"s Did? They just wrote it as a failure.

Richard Baker (one of the decision makers) on his blog wrote it was one of 4e's biggest missteps. I still follow Richard Baker and one of the reasons I play ESO is because he and many of the old 2nd edition Forgotten Realms people work on Elder SCrolls online currently.

Sure. And I generally drew more on the PoL/Nerath setting than FR anyway, so you could say that they lost the target audience with FR (loregeeks - meant kindly!).

It's funny how parallel that was – Nerath literally copypasted classic D&D modules from various settings but especially from World of Greyhawk, so people criticised them for giving them ALMOST Greyhawk but not the Greyhawk they know.

For me, I personally prefer if sacred cows are slaughtered and the game is built from the ground up to be the best game it can be. But that's not necessarily how you win audiences - it's always going to need some level of compromise between new recruits and the "old guard." I feel that 5e accomplished that in many ways, especially where it put the re-rebooted Realms front and center.

I would note that the timeline has marched on further and I wonder how Ed Greenwood feels about that timeline march, rather than just erasing the Spellplague years entirely. It doesn't REALLY affect the most important characters, who are effectively immortal for differing reasons, but it did change the power regimes in various nations, and allowed for characters to draw on those Spellplague and Returned Abeir years for their backgrounds (esp. for Dragonborn PCs!). This is the sort of compromise with the compromise needed, since now WotC had to appeal to THREE crowds: those who loved the 1e-3.5e Realms, those who loved the 4e game and play in the Realms, and the vast swath of new recruits to the game. You can't turn the clock back, so Dragonborn and Tiefling had to be in the 5e PHB, as did the Warlock and a semi-Warlord Fighter build. And because those are in the game, the Realms needs an explanation for them since the Realms are now the core setting. And that means you need the history of Asmodeus' rise for the standard 4e-5e Tieflings and you need Returned Abeir for Dragonborn. So that brings us to a further march in time where Returned Abeir and the Spellplague elements have been reversed, but some peoples who were affected by those times remained and those histories trickle down.

Do you, Mournblade94, play Realms as if the timeline hadn't marched ahead, and is still back in the years featured in 3.5e? If so, what work do you end up doing to make sure you can adapt these adventures to that timeline? If not, how do you feel about the compromised timeline and new leadership in various cities?
 

cbwjm

Seb-wejem
Weird how many people who say they are in disagreement with the article come across as actually being in agreement with the article. Ed mentions that in your campaign it is absolutely fine to kill off an important NPC, it's your campaign, you don't need anyone's permission to kill of Elminster or King Azoun or whoever. It's only if writing for the company that produces the IP that you might need to take care about what happens. Even in the scenario with the dying king, it would suck if I was a player and the party did everything right, no delays to side quests, only to return and have the DM say "Too late, the king died." People might disparage the vizier killing the king but then that gives the party a new goal, they were thwarted not by poor writing but by a twist in the plot. I'd think that would be a great conclusion to the current adventure and a springboard into the next.
 

Mournblade94

Adventurer
Do you, Mournblade94, play Realms as if the timeline hadn't marched ahead, and is still back in the years featured in 3.5e? If so, what work do you end up doing to make sure you can adapt these adventures to that timeline? If not, how do you feel about the compromised timeline and new leadership in various cities?

Its Complicated :) I take a page from the ElderScrolls Dragonbreak. When the Spellplague occured, many lands got suspended in time (like most of the "other Continents" kara tur, Zakhara, Mulhorand, Maztica) and their time line froze until the second sundering. SO the areas on the sword coast have advanced since that's where most of the story occurred. I play the advanced timeline, because the Forgotten Realms Group made a good effort to compromise things. The new realms is not so bad, and I play it with the Spellplague largely being less effective (BECAUSE of the efforts of the PC's like 13 years ago), 4 of them are STILL in my current campaign with lower level characters. Alot of the problems I had with the Spellplague weresolved by me creating adventures for my Players Epic level characters. Example: They changed Vaasa to the Warlock Knights, and my EpicPC's broke their back by destroying Talos the Iron Golem. 3 Attacked Talos on the Prime, and 3 simultaneously attacked his aspect on the Elemental Plane of Earth, destroying him outright. So I kind of let the new history be OUR history, with the Epic PC characters a major reason for alot of the published fixes.

I have for the most part liked the story path adventures (except Tomb of Annihilation was weak and shoe horned), and I just wrapped up OUT OF THE ABYSS.

I have repaired my meta story to gel with the new realms, but alot of that was curtailing the spellplague. The second sundering book series were very good, and I like those stories so they sold me. My disappointment is they did nothing with those novels after except for maybe Erin Evans. There are a lot of characters I would like to see continued.

RA Salvatore and Ed Greenwood both have video interviews where they tried to stop the WOTC decisions of the 4e realms. They were too late, but they both said they had plans to fix it before it started. I am not sure where to find them.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top