The New Forgotten Realms - (About) A Year Later

[Primal]

You're right that it's not unique to FR, but almost no matter where it's done, it's annoying. It's like the cliche of having George Takei answer angry continuity questions at a Trek convention. You've taken all the fun out of make-believe storytelling.

Now, that's the view from the outside. I'm well aware that some people have a lot of fun plumbing the lore depths of their favorite X. That's fine and good and neat and shouldn't be invalidated haphazardly in the official documents.

But you should be able to take off the truefan hat and enjoy the game regardless. If you can't, that kind of is a problem because it functionally means that no one else can make that setting their own. It's yours, not theirs. In D&D, that's part and parcel of the fun of running a game: adapting it for your own group.

As a less-dorky example, I have a roommate who is crazy into the Beatles. She gets really angry whenever someone claims to be really into the Beatles, and she kind of enters this one-upmanship of "who loves them more" with the person, an impromptu trivia quiz and rattling off of facts and things. This can be an issue, because she doesn't let people appreciate the Beatles on their own level: it has to be on HER terms, they can't have their OWN experiences with the band. I have to beat her about the neck and face on a regular basis for it, too. He's allowed to have his own Beatles experience. Your DM is allowed to run his own FR experience.

(Just a quick reply until I get home...)

Certainly, but don't you think the group should discuss these matters beforehand? If my group had diehard Eberron fans, I'd likely discuss any major changes (such as, say, replacing Mournlands with Ravenloft or the ruler of Karrnath with a paladin king) with them beforehand. Of course, you *can* just say "By the way, guys, the Warforged are evil in my campaign and you can't play them... either suck it up or walk out the door!", but there's a middle road to this. I'm firmly of the mind that every DM decides what happens at his table, but you should also consider the wishes and opinion of your players, too. For example, if my players hate WFRP, I wouldn't try forcing it down their throats; likewise, if they prefer dungeoncrawling and slaying monsters, I wouldn't run intrigue-laden adventures with multi-layered plots and dozens of NPCs. That doesn't mean you always need to say "Yes", either; the wisest thing is to discuss this in your group and find out what everyone wants out of the game. Is everyone okay if your next Dark Sun campaign features some major changes? Does anyone have a problem if you only allow stuff from PHB 1? And so on.

Sometimes you read the book and you choose to go a different route for your own purposes. For instance, perhaps the DM wants to put their own leader in charge so that said leader can be evil.

Sometimes you read it and you don't care for it. "Oh. It's boring to have the only public churches being non-Evil ones. Let's add some evil ones."

Sometimes you read it but don't remember it "What was the name of this king?"

Sometimes you don't read it because another part interests you more. "Nobody cares what the ruler's name is, because that's not what the game is about this time!"

The idea is, of course, that as a DM, you get to choose what exists and what doesn't.

The written material never trumps the DM's say-so, be it in a rule or in the fluff.

And here I see it coming down to gaming style preferences; if everyone is on the same page in your group and having fun, it's all fine and well. We do it all the time with minor stuff in my group -- as a player, I might occasionally recognise a local shopkeeper or high priest as being half the world away from his canon location, but I don't mind if it fits. However, having played in FR campaigns (in other groups) in which the DM not only changed the ruler of Cormyr without any other explanations than "I didn't want to read the book", he also managed to continually misspell the name of the kingdom (as Cormyrea, I think). As a DM, I always try to make the setting feel "alive" and internally consistent, and as a player I expect the DM to put at least *some* effort into his campaigns. Just as I expect adventures to have at least some sort of coherent plots and NPCs to behave according to logical motivations (beyond the 'I-am-Evil-therefore-I-kidnap-children'-type of senseless justification for a hackfest).

 

[jdrakeh]

As a DM, I always try to make the setting feel "alive" and internally consistent, and as a player I expect the DM to put at least *some* effort into his campaigns.

Note, though, that internal consistency does not mean "adhering to canon." It's entirely possible to be internally consistent within the boundaries of one's own FR game without catering to canon.

Frex, if the aformentioned DM replaces the ruler of Cormyr with one of his own design in his game and doesn't change the ruler of Cormyr frequently and without cause therein, the campaign is internally consistent.

Internal consistency has to do with the game world as presented by the DM, not as presented in reference works that he's not employing. Hence the "internal" part.

 

[Obryn]

My advice to everyone is that use what you want, and change the rest; if someone in the group has an issue with it, try to talk with your players and tell them why and how it happened.

This doesn't work for me, at least. If I'm running a minimal-canon game, I don't necessarily have the background to tell someone why or how something happened. After all, I'm using minimal canon sources - if I change something, it will be based on that information, and not based on information in the Complete Book of Elven Hairstyles, Volume II.

I'd expect a group of reasonably casual players to roll with this. As the DM, I'm never "wrong" about the setting. Never, ever, ever - it's basically impossible. I might be wrong about rules, but never about the world. If a player isn't fine with this, I'd rather they play in someone else's game who has the time and energy to delve deep into the canon of whatever setting they're playing.

And although this "canon fanaticism" is often attributed to FR, every book/movie/setting has its own diehard fans; I'm sure there are people on this forum who would rise and walk out if I ran, say, a SW campaign and said "Darth Vader? Who's Darth Vader?" or "Oh, that annoying Skywalker never existed in my campaign". At the very least I would probably need to justify how my version without Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker is different from the "official" SW Universe.

FR canon lawyers are on a different plane than other setting canon lawyers, and the canon is possibly among the largest in all of F/SF. I think only Star Wars is in the same zone.

There has been more material - gaming and non-gaming, computer and paper - produced for the Forgotten Realms than just about any setting in existence. There's more info on it than Middle Earth, much more than Dragonlance, mountains more than Greyhawk, and hugely more than Eberron. There's more than Star Trek, even. It's been collecting lore since the early eighties without really shedding any of it. I'd argue there's less than Star Wars, but Star Wars has the advantage of being a huge universe with a long timeline, and you can just invent planets and systems as needed.

I know you can point to canon fanatics in pretty much everything, but there's no canon like FR canon anywhere else in gaming. It's gargantuan, plain and simple, and nothing else in fantasy gaming comes even close.

-O

 

[Hussar]

/snip
I'm not sure why people pick up published settings if they're not willing to read the books (and I'm not saying you have to read *EVERY* book); running a homebrew setting would be much easier, if you have fanatic Eberron/Dragonlance/FR/Etcetera fans in the group.

How many books would you personally consider required before I can run a "reasonable" FR canon game? There's what, some twenty, thirty THOUSAND pages of canon for FR? What would be a reasonable percentage? 10%? 1%? Even at 1%, you're looking at several hundred pages of setting material.

I should not, ever, need to read several hundred pages of setting material before running a game. And note, that's to be considered "barely qualified". 1% of the total background material isn't going to set any records after all. If you can't get enough canon out of about ten, maybe twenty pages of background material, you're not trying hard enough.

It should never require that much reading to be considered "qualified" to run a game. If it does, then the background material needs to be pruned down with a flame thrower - or a Spell plague.

 

[SSquirrel]

Not really dm should be free to change anything in a campaign book for any reason he wants. Keeping all fluff in the campaign guide the same limits dm creativity. I hate settings that have too much fluff because it limits what the dm and players can do with it. Give me a few basics and some mysterious plot hooks and Im good to go. Old FR was overly developed there was nothing mysterious or magical about it.

William, I'm fine if you say that you don't personally like something, but you have the habit of always presenting your opinions as facts and I don't like it. I don't think lore limits a DM's creativity or that the "Old Realms" were not mysterious or magical, but I've already discussed these subjects with you to ad nauseaum on the WoTC boards and I don't want to repeat it here (note: I use a different alias here). Our gaming and DMing styles are at the other ends of the spectrum, so let's just agree to disagree and leave it there, okay?

The people who felt that FR, esp during 2E and 3E, had material released that detailed so many areas to such minute levels all seem to agree about the lack of mystery and magic to the setting. I love watching "making of" special features. I enjoy knowing how they pulled off some things you see in a movie. I have a friend who can't stand them and seeing how they do things just ruins it for her. If you release enough products about Waterdeep that someone can rattle off all the official names of businesses down a main thoroughfare (which I'm sure someone can), then for a lot of people it's about as interesting as reading a phone book.

I would say that william is correct that keeping all campaign fluff intact and changing nothing does limit the DM. A lot of things can be changed without raising a stir, but if you suddenly tell people that they're off to visit Elminster where he lives in Pensecola (part of the Moonshaes) people familiar with the setting will be rightly surprised that he isn't in Shadowdale and will probably ask. Everyone who is familiar with a setting has a different point at which the changes the DM has made will pull them out of the setting and make it less immersive for them.

Discussion of tweaks to a known setting is pretty common at our table when we play. If I was running the aforementioned Star Wars game w/no Vader or Skywalker, I would explain how either Anakin had never been or he died at X point of things. You can stave off a lot of anger from a bunch of sci fi geeks by simply saying it is an alternate timeline that you are playing in.

If Azoun was replaced with King Ralph and Ralph had a couple of sons Azoun hadn't had, but had still done most of the same things Azoun did, it's just a different name and a bigger family. Maybe he has sons so the sons can be secretly plotting to take over Cormyr and the players have to stop it. Maybe the DM just thought Azoun would be lonely w/o sons. Who knows.

Any DM is free to tell their players to take a hike if they don't like some changes they have made, but the less pulling a rug out from under them you do a few sessions in, the better IMO.

 

[SSquirrel]

It should never require that much reading to be considered "qualified" to run a game. If it does, then the background material needs to be pruned down with a flame thrower - or a Spell plague.

Viva la spell plague!! Maybe I just enjoy change. I'm happy w/the Cataclysm expansion for WoW too heh.

 

[Entreri]

I think, and hope, that FR can stay alive indefinitely. The novels are what's keeping it alive and thriving. As long as novels from Salvatore and the like keep coming out, people will stay hooked on this incredible world.

 

[Primal]

Note, though, that internal consistency does not mean "adhering to canon." It's entirely possible to be internally consistent within the boundaries of one's own FR game without catering to canon.

Frex, if the aformentioned DM replaces the ruler of Cormyr with one of his own design in his game and doesn't change the ruler of Cormyr frequently and without cause therein, the campaign is internally consistent.

Internal consistency has to do with the game world as presented by the DM, not as presented in reference works that he's not employing. Hence the "internal" part.

Sure, I'm talking about internal consistency in the DM's campaign (NPCs have consistent names and looks throughout the campaign, and so on), but I'm also talking about internal consistency in regard to the setting, e.g. no Zhentarim castles inside a Harper-dominated city or LG paladins of Cyric. If you're running the setting for the first time, it may be that the internal consistency in regard to canon references is all the players have, and that may prove problematic (as discussed in many posts on this thread). Note that I'm not saying that you need to read every published word on the setting (not even on the region you place the campaign in), but those examples (and the actual ruler of Cormyr) are found in the campaign setting (which I expect every DM to read).

That is why I said that it's important to discuss these matters with the players, *if* you're not certain where they stand in regard to specific settings (i.e. how do they feel about canon lore). I know what everyone thinks in my group, but if I ran the game for total strangers, I might ask how much exposure they have had with FR. For example, if there's a Dalelands "expert" in the group (who, perhaps, has even DMed campaigns there), I might set the game somewhere else; it does not mean the area is "off-limits", but it might be easier, more fun and refreshing for everyone if I ran a game somewhere else. Likewise, if the guys have already had five Eberron campaigns in Sharn, why would I want to run another there?

 

[Primal]

How many books would you personally consider required before I can run a "reasonable" FR canon game? There's what, some twenty, thirty THOUSAND pages of canon for FR? What would be a reasonable percentage? 10%? 1%? Even at 1%, you're looking at several hundred pages of setting material.

Depends on what the players prefer... I know a couple of DMs who never actually *read* any of the books, and they get 90% of the facts "wrong" in regard to canon Realmslore (I'm referring to one of them above with my comment about the 'Cormyrea'-campaign) but their players don't seem to mind.

Frankly, I don't know about your DMing style or which sort of game your players prefer. Want a lot of social interaction with NPCs? Write complex background stories for their PCs? Take a lot of notes during the session? Often ask questions about minor details? Have much exposure have they had with FR canon? Do they in general care if your campaign contradicts official lore?

For example, if you're good with improvising stuff (and writing it down at the same time) and your players do not read a lot of FR books... well, not much. What I *do* expect every DM to read is the campaign setting (which is, indeed, hundreds of pages), but that goes IMO without saying. You could also pick an area that is less-detailed than, for example, Waterdeep, Cormyr or the Dalelands; contrary to the popular belief, there are a lot of cities, towns and areas covered with maybe two to five pages in published canon lore.

I should not, ever, need to read several hundred pages of setting material before running a game. And note, that's to be considered "barely qualified". 1% of the total background material isn't going to set any records after all. If you can't get enough canon out of about ten, maybe twenty pages of background material, you're not trying hard enough.

It should never require that much reading to be considered "qualified" to run a game. If it does, then the background material needs to be pruned down with a flame thrower - or a Spell plague.

Well, do you ever read the campaign setting book before you run your first campaign in a published setting? Because usually that is at least 150+ pages. As I said above, I might get away with my ignorance of Karrnath's true nature or Sharn's layout if the players don't care about details or adherence/consistency with the "official" lore -- however, if they do care about such stuff, why not run PoL or a homebrewed setting or a setting nobody knows about instead? Why cling to the idea that "It's my DM's right not to read a single page more than I want to, and you need to suck it up or walk out!"? Why does it need to be FR? I wouldn't expect to get away with reading only 20 pages in ECS and running a decent Eberron campaign.

(BTW, even after the Spellplague and the reduced word count in 4E FRCG, it's still more than 20 pages, right?)

 

[jdrakeh]

Sure, I'm talking about internal consistency in the DM's campaign (NPCs have consistent names and looks throughout the campaign, and so on), but I'm also talking about internal consistency in regard to the setting, e.g. no Zhentarim castles inside a Harper-dominated city or LG paladins of Cyric. If you're running the setting for the first time, it may be that the internal consistency in regard to canon references is all the players have, and that may prove problematic (as discussed in many posts on this thread). Note that I'm not saying that you need to read every published word on the setting (not even on the region you place the campaign in), but those examples (and the actual ruler of Cormyr) are found in the campaign setting (which I expect every DM to read).

But that's not internal consistency. It's canon adherence. You're using the words "internally consistent" or "internal consistency" to describe canon adherance. These two things aren't even remotely the same. If the DM changes the ruler of Cormyr prior to play (for any reason) and sticks with that ruler for the duration of his campaign, then his campaign is 100% internally consistent. Only if If the DM changes the ruler of Cormyr three or four times during actual play without explanation, would his game be internally inconsistent.