Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jester47" data-source="post: 640929" data-attributes="member: 2238">I think my point is that the FR is all of that and none of that.&nbsp; Its different things to different people.&nbsp; And that is why I started this thread.&nbsp; I wanted to see what the different views of the realms were and the reasoning behind them.&nbsp; Yes there is what is in print, but it goes way beyond that.&nbsp; I think comparing the written word of campaign settings is like comparing apples to apples.&nbsp; Its mostly useless.My version of the realms is not happy.&nbsp; It is not populated.&nbsp; Things beyond civilizatoin are dangerous.&nbsp; And even civilization is not anything to write home about.&nbsp; There is a sinister side to everything.&nbsp; Even the good guys.&nbsp; In my realms, there is a big question as to weather the powerful forces of good are still good.&nbsp; I keep a copy of WHFRP next to my realms sourcebooks.&nbsp; It is a reminder that the realms can FEEL that way too.&nbsp; But then that begs the question: would I just be using the maps for a campaign of a different sort?&nbsp; The answer is undoutedly no.&nbsp; I still use the silver marches, the city of waterdeep, and the haunted halls of eveningstar.&nbsp; They have the same layout and the same monsters.&nbsp; But I present everything with teaspoon of grit and a cup of the surreal.&nbsp; I add a cup of the primeval and then trim with a layer of darkness.&nbsp;&nbsp; Magic and nature are bigger than everything else and civilisation is always a temporary condition.&nbsp; But if I was running Kalamar, it would be the same.I think that is why I just shrugged my shoulders when everyone started talking about the Scarred Lands.&nbsp; &quot;Wow, the cosmology is different, but overall, it sounds like my FR campaigns.&quot;&nbsp; The thing that I thought was great about reading eds stuff was the idea that elminster is not really sane.&nbsp; I think thats great.&nbsp; I think it is wonderful that this guy can go Zagyg on Faerun at the drop of his hat (notice his hat is now missing).&nbsp; Aaron.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jester47, post: 640929, member: 2238"] I think my point is that the FR is all of that and none of that. Its different things to different people. And that is why I started this thread. I wanted to see what the different views of the realms were and the reasoning behind them. Yes there is what is in print, but it goes way beyond that. I think comparing the written word of campaign settings is like comparing apples to apples. Its mostly useless. My version of the realms is not happy. It is not populated. Things beyond civilizatoin are dangerous. And even civilization is not anything to write home about. There is a sinister side to everything. Even the good guys. In my realms, there is a big question as to weather the powerful forces of good are still good. I keep a copy of WHFRP next to my realms sourcebooks. It is a reminder that the realms can FEEL that way too. But then that begs the question: would I just be using the maps for a campaign of a different sort? The answer is undoutedly no. I still use the silver marches, the city of waterdeep, and the haunted halls of eveningstar. They have the same layout and the same monsters. But I present everything with teaspoon of grit and a cup of the surreal. I add a cup of the primeval and then trim with a layer of darkness. Magic and nature are bigger than everything else and civilisation is always a temporary condition. But if I was running Kalamar, it would be the same. I think that is why I just shrugged my shoulders when everyone started talking about the Scarred Lands. "Wow, the cosmology is different, but overall, it sounds like my FR campaigns." The thing that I thought was great about reading eds stuff was the idea that elminster is not really sane. I think thats great. I think it is wonderful that this guy can go Zagyg on Faerun at the drop of his hat (notice his hat is now missing). Aaron. [/QUOTE]

Verification